< 7 November 9 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Oui, je comprends assez bien le francais, and I see no reliable sourcing reasons that support that this individual is sufficiently notable enough for Wikipedia's requirements. The creator needs to realize also that other Wikipedia's have different notability requirements. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Lebègue

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

Non-notable person. Sole claim to notability is that he coined the name "Spacebus", but the only source for this are his personal archives. None of the other activities (making photos for WP, writing articles in the company magazine, giving talks), however laudable, seem to add to his notability. Does not meet WP:PROF, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Je réponds en français, ma langue maternelle. Si un aimable wikipedien veut bien ajouter une traduction dans la langue de Shakespeare, je lui serais très reconnaissante.
Je dénonce cette demande de suppression, non signée, mais venant de User:Guillaume2303.
Ce wikipedien est intervenu sur l'article du 27 octobre 17:34 au 30 oct. 09:38 avec une rafale de suppressions de la plus grande partie des références. Je suis intervenue le 3 nov 14:09 en lui demandant "pourquoi?" dans sa page de discussion. La discussion s'est arrêtée le 4 nov. 08:22 où il reconnaissait des erreurs. Mais il n'est jamais revenu rectifier ces erreurs dans l'article.
Hier, 8 nov. 12:43, il s'est déclaré "Retired" de Wikipedia !
Hier soir entre 23:25 et 23:45, j'ai repris la plupart de ses suppressions dans l'article.
6 minutes plus tard à 23:51, il mettait l'article en "suppression" !
Que faire ? Bien cordialement, --Sosak fr (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do you mean, "unsigned"? My signature is directly above your comment here... And yes, I'm retiring from WP and only am cleaning up a few loose ends. Which, of course, is absolutely immaterial to this discussion. Please see WP:AFD and links therein to see what kind of arguments you need if you want to have this article kept (especially this part). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excusez-moi, je navais pas vu de suite votre signature. J'ai l'habitude de voir des propositions de suppression dans WP francophone, où elles commencent par un bandeau plus explicite avec la signature du demandeur.
J'ai parcouru les références que vous m'indiquez ; je vais voir aussi sur Google où une recherche donne quand même pas mal de références : Recherche sur Google pour Guy Lebègue.
Sa notoriété est surtout due à son "invention" de la marque Spacebus. Mais autant le nom est très connu dans le domaine du spatial, car des dizaines de satellites Spacebus sont en orbite autour de la Terre diffusant de la télévision vers des milliards d'individus, autant le nom de l'inventeur est peu connu car même pas cité dans le dépôt de marque à l'INPI, ce qui ne se faisait pas du temps d'aerospatiale, frustrant donc quelque peu les "inventeurs" et ne les incitant pas tellement à dépenser beaucoup d'énergie pour le dépôt de brevets! D'ailleurs, ce soir encore Ariane va lancer de Kourou un nouveau Spacebus : un spectacle à ne pas manquer sur le site web d'Arianespace!--Sosak fr (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Spacebus (see below). He is included in that article's history section as responsible for the Spacebus name, but there is really no significant coverage of him in independent sources. He has been quoted here and there, but I find nothing actually about him, including in French sources, to the best of my ability to search. The CASP site is not a reliable source and, despite a much more in-depth biography, doesn't help meet our standard of references. (Réorienter à Spacebus. Il est inclus dans la section histoire de cet article pour être responsable de la marque Spacebus, mais il n'ya vraiment aucune couverture significative de lui par des sources indépendantes. Il a été cité ici et là, mais je ne trouve rien fait parler de lui, y compris en sources françaises, au meilleur de ma capacité à la recherche. Le site CASP n'est pas une source fiable et, en dépit d'une plus grande approfondie biographie, ne nous aide pas à satisfaire nos standards de références.) Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Le problème pour Spacebus est que l'article est déjà très développé, très lourd en Ko, donc difficile à mettre à jour pour ceux qui n'ont pas de haut débit, appelé à croitre encore au fur et à mesure d'informations nouvelles sur cette série de satellites pendant de nombreuses années, et ne peut supporter beaucoup d'informations sur Guy Lebègue, telles que décrites actuellement ou à venir : conférences données, nouvelles publications en particulier avec son nouveau rôle d'historien en tant que président de l'association "Cannes Aéro Spatial Patrimoine" (CASP - pourquoi ce site n'est pas fiable ?) dépouillant et publiant des tonnes d'archives de l'entreprise Cannes Mandelieu Space Center.--Sosak fr (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can even keep Lebègue in the Spacebus article: there are just no independent reliable sources. The "source" used to substantiate that Lebègue came up with the name Spacebus is a simple typewritten internal memo archived on the site of the association that he presides. Neither are there good sources for the other things that Sosak fr mentions, nor are these things usually very notable, so they don't belong in the bio or in the Spacebus article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pourtant, la référence me semble précise : la note de service interne aerospatiale est archivée dans les archives de la société, ce qui est quand même le minimum. Or, l'association du patrimoine, qui a justement son siège dans la même société dans un local proche des archives, a déposé une copie numérisée chez son hébergeur. C'est cette copie qui est accessible dans la référence. Que voulez-vous faire ou voir de plus? Pourquoi vouloir nier que Lebègue soit l'inventeur de la marque Spacebus? Quant à l'association et son site web, elle a été créée à l'origine en 2006 sans Lebègue. Il y est entré plus tard et en a été élu président en 2011, justement du fait de sa notoriété dans l'entreprise et le milieu spatial, ainsi que dans la société savante 3AF.--Sosak fr (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody wants to deny Lebègue's contributions. But the sourcing is problematic. To start with, it's a primary source and WP needs reliable secondary sources. In addition, whether Lebègue was with the association since its beginning or not, the source is not really independent, as he is now its president. And finally, even if we have good sourcing that he was the one who coined this name, that really is not something that suffices for WP:BIO or WP:GNG, although it would justify a one-line mention in the Spacebus article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Là encore, je ne comprend pas bien le fonctionnement du WP anglophone. Il est fourni ici une source primaire : le document du 23 août 1983 qui est l'acte de naissance de Spacebus - d'ailleurs, on va fêter l'année prochaine les 30 ans du bébé qui a rapporté beaucoup d'argent dans l'industrie spatiale mondiale, mais surtout européenne, générant beaucoup d'emplois! -; c'est une source primaire des plus fiables et les recommandations de WP n'obligent pas à citer des sources secondaires. Un faire-part de naissance dans la presse peut être erroné, alors que l'acte lui-même ne l'est pas! Reste à dire : l'inventeur d'une marque qui a rapporté des milliards d'euros peut prétendre ou pas à avoir sa biographie dans Wikipedia.--Sosak fr (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's a problem that the citation is to a primary source, at least as far as merger to Spacebus goes. From WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." I see no problem allowing the organization to tell us where the name of its own project came from. Because it's not independent, it doesn't contribute to notability for Lebègue (which I think is clearly not forthcoming), but there's no requirement for individual elements in a wider article to fully meet WP:GNG. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, I agree with that. Unfortunately, in the current case, the primary source is one type-written sheet, not housed on the company website but on the site of an association presided by Lebègue. Without wanting to suggest any impropriety here, I do think that this is not an unassailable source for anything... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, you're quite right. I'd failed to realize that third-party hosting was our only source for the document. In the absence of either another source making the connection or better provenance for that document, I think I have no choice but to shift my support to delete on verifiability grounds. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sosak fr: I absolutely understand the problem. However, I hope that you can appreciate that a serious encyclopedia cannot take a single typewritten sheet hosted on a third-party website as a source. If we would do that, it would open the door to all kind of problems. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pour travailler sur des archives très anciennes, comme celles de la généalogie, je suis certain qu'il y aura encore de nombreuses années avant que tous les actes d'état-civil ne soient disponibles sur le moindre site web et que seul l'acte papier restera la seule référence. Et quid de la perrenité des sites web ? Seront-ils éternels ? Trop souvent on fait référence dans WP à des publications sur des web paraissant pourtant sérieux et qui disparaissent!--Sosak fr (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To help understand the English Wikipedia, you might also take a look at WP:BIO1E which explains why people notable for only a single event don't rate articles. Primary documents by themselves, if secondary source have not taken note of them, are indicative that the topic is not notable. An authentic primary document imparts no notability, it is the social process of selecting and repeating information that creates notability which is why the guidelines use the phrase significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 11:09, 15 November 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. I speedy deleted it as A10, duplicate of Polytechnic Institute of New York University. I thank 72Dino for pointing this out. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic School of Engineering

Polytechnic School of Engineering (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)

Copy-paste of article: Polytechnic Institute of New York University by a likely sockpuppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000/Archive that has repeatedly been banned. Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  23:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 9 November 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. This closure still leaves open the possibility of an article merge if the page editors decide this is needed or useful. SpinningSpark 17:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binary ethylenimine

Binary ethylenimine (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)

"Dimeric aziridine" does not exist. The reference does not claim it creates dimeric aziridine, it merely generates aziridine in situ, instead of using pre-prepared aziridine. Therefore, this lemma covers a non-existent thing and it cites a source that does not claim to create this thing. Stijndon (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or possibly merge It seems that the whole nomination pivots around a simple small content issue -the "dimeric aziridine" problem. But first of all: notability. That binary ethylenimine 1)exists and 2)is notable is obvious from the huge amount of academic literature (see also PubMed). If the content of the article is inaccurate, we can solve by editing and improving, not deletion, so the keep vs. delete debate is covered.
What about the keep vs merge possibility? Binary ethylenimine is actually a preparation of aziridine/ethyleneimine as explained here: The inactivant was called binary ethyleneimine or BEI because it is prepared from two substances, 2-bromoethylamine HBr (BEA) and NaOH, and also to distinguish this preparation from pure EI". So far, it seems it's just a synonym of ethyleneimine/aziridine. But it is actually discussed separately in the paper. Inside this paper it refers to binary ethylenimine as explicitly different: EI (ethyleneimine) is a very stable and inexpensive reagent, but like other EI derivatives (4) and beta-propiolactone, it requires very careful handling. [...] In contrast, BEI (binary ethyleneimine) has the advantages of having the same stability and low price as EI, and of being less hazardous to handle. (p. 121-122). This patent seems possibly to imply that it is considered a separate form of aziridine: The preferred aziridine compound is binary ethyleneimine (BEI). Other examples are trimeric ethyleneimine (TEI) and acetyl-ethyleneimine. Here too aziridine and binary ethyleneimine are considered separately. "Ethylenimine dimer" is listed seldomly in the literature too, with at least one reference claiming it is a virus inactivator, like BEI -this is possibly what swayed the article author. My impression from the literature is that the way of preparation creates a mixture or complex that stabilizes the aziridine, helping in handling and use for virus inactivation -and given that most sources consider BEI as something separated and different from pure aziridine, I guess we should follow their lead. But there are also good arguments for a merge. However, deletion doesn't look like a sensible option here. --Cyclopiatalk 22:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now removed the "dimeric aziridine" mention from the article [1]. --Cyclopiatalk 22:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, largely as above. There's a huge volume of literature on this topic, include material in Vaccine and the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, plus a ton more in veterinary science journals. Would that all the medical chemistry topics that come to AFD had that sourcing available. Accordingly, I'm pretty sure we should follow the lead of the field and not merge this anywhere. I'm also dubious about whether this is a unique compound or just a unique mixture of compounds, but as far as inclusion is concerned, that's a distinction without a difference. Cleanup would be good though; a read-through the of the extensive literature, better sourcing, and clearer article wording would be laudable goals here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to aziridine I am the one who nominated it for deletion in the first place, and I'll explain my motives more clearly here: binary ethylenimine is not a thing. It is actually just bromoethylamine being used to achieve the same effects that aziridine would achieve. What this effect is, is the alkylation of free amines, thiols, and possibly alcohols in proteins (or possibly nucleic acids) through their nucleophilic attack on either the formed aziridine, or on the bromine-bearing carbon of bromoethylamine. But since aziridine rapidly forms in situ, because the intramolecular reaction is faster than any intermolecular one, it behaves the same as regular aziridine would. The fact that biologists or clinicians in the past have called it binary ethylenimine (maybe because it requires two steps?) or the completely wrong dimeric aziridine does not mean that that makes sense. In general, I am an inclusionist, but this article just makes no sense. I guess it would be the best solution for all to empty this page, make it a redirect to aziridine, and then create a chapter in the aziridine page called "binary ethylenimine" where we explain that in some cases, an in situ generation is used over addition of the pre-prepared compound. That chapter could then contain the scraps of info that can be scavenged from this article. If we choose this option, then people looking for the term "binary ethylenimine" will still find information about it, but also there will be one less undeserving article.
Of course binary ethylenimine is discussed separately from aziridine in papers that discuss it. You use a different method, so you need to separately discuss it. In theory, if you would use the same compound but from different vendors, you would already need to separately discuss it. The thing is that it's the same chemistry that they're performing. The fact that scientific rigour requires separate discussion does not mean that there should be different articles on each strategy. It al boils down to "we alkylate the nucleophiles, yay." If this would be deserving of a separate article, then all methods where they vary the base or any of the concentrations would deserve that, too.
A reason people prefer this two-step protocol would be that with bromoethylamine, you can make the amine a salt during storage to make it involatile. If it's not a gas, it's less dangerous because you'll no longer accidentally breathe it in. You then turn it into the volatile (and thus 'dangerous') aziridine only when you need it. Therefor, another option is to create a page for bromoethylamine (which is the compound that's actually "binary ethylenimine") and redirect this to that. But since binary ethylenimine is just a method for using aziridine, I still believe the above option is best: deleting this page and scavenging some info for an addition to aziridine. Stijndon (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the minor form issue that you are not expected to !vote after nominating, I welcome your insightful explanation. First of all, you are actually proposing a merge, not a full deletion. Therefore instead of using first PROD and then AFD, you should have proposed a merge (or directly done it yourself). Second: All what you say (btw: sources?) seem to point in the direction of keeping the article. You say: "The fact that biologists or clinicians in the past have called it binary ethylenimine (maybe because it requires two steps?) or the completely wrong dimeric aziridine does not mean that that makes sense." - But we're not here to make a scientific nomenclature debate. Lots of sources discuss aziridine and BEI as two different things, for reasons that are practical and make perfect sense. You also state "You use a different method, so you need to separately discuss it." - And this method is what the article (or the merged section) should be about, no more, no less. Yes, the end chemistry is the same, but that a distinct method of obtaining such chemistry is so clearly singled out and discussed in the literature makes it notable on its own. --Cyclopiatalk 11:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So is it okay if I merge this into aziridine? Stijndon (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, let's wait for the AfD to take its course before acting -we have a week to gauge consensus. --Cyclopiatalk 14:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems Stijndon is using a lot of information to show the topic is notable, if controversial. A merge might be okay, but there appears to be a lot of information, enough for keeping it. -Fjozk (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 9 November 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 Withdrawn. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on offline sources. Gigs (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Lough Jr.

Rodney Lough Jr. (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)

Insufficient secondary source coverage to meet notability standards. Some minor coverage in Outdoor Photographer, and apparently another story in Inside Analog Photography, but I won't access the latter since the URL sets off malware detection in Chrome. The rest of the cited sources are press releases or photo credits.

Article has been subject to a constant barrage of promotional and puffery edits by Lough or his agents since it was created by an SPA in 2008. At one point he edit warred in an attempt to add a disclaimer that the article had been "OVER EDITED BY WIKI" (his caps).

This article has been a constant drain on editorial resources here, and given the very weak notability of the subject, we should just delete it. Gigs (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I Disagree

There had clearly been a great deal of contention between Lough and WIkipedia editors two or more years ago, and I can see the documentation of that, but constant barrage? Constant drain on editors? We have different definitions of "constant" I think, and I think we can all agree that these statements are a bit over the top.

I don't understand why all my edits were taken down. I'm a fan and a collector of Lough's work, and I noticed his page was sorely in need of some updates. So I poked around and made some. I admit that I'm new to Wikipedia in general, and maybe I'm still learning the rules, but with regard to deletion and notability, I'm very confused.

I decided to read back through all the squabbling from the past to get a better sense of what is going on here. It is well documented that notability had already been established if you look back in the history of this page. If you want to see an example of notability, just look at the Smithsonian's own website: http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/natures_best_2007/gallery/flygeyser.html

That piece was on display in 2007 and 2008, and is now part of the Smithsonian's permanent collection. I see the same honor mentioned on Peter Lik's wikipedia page, and I can only assume that this is part of why Lik has a page. As far as I'm concerned, if he is in the Smithsonian, he is notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lik

Also, there is a Popular Photography Magazine article featuring a profile on Clyde Butcher and Rodney Lough Jr. This is a link to he photo spread from the issue, but the full copy of the text is not listed for whatever reason. http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/viewfinder-within In this article you can plainly see photos of Lough and taken by Lough alongside those of Clyde Butcher. This Clyde Butcher also has a wikipedia page, and he doesn't seem any more or less notable than either Lik or Lough from where I'm sitting. I subscribe to Pop Photo, and I'm sure I have that issue lying around here somewhere. If I can find it I will add the bilbio info on it.

Clyde Butcher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Butcher

Anyway, what I'm getting at here with my examples is you need to be consistent. If we take down Lough, then you really need to take down Clyde Butcher and Peter Lik as well. Don't you think? Don't misunderstand, I think taking down any of the three of them is silly, but if one is not notable, then none are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJoeyMoore (talk • contribs)

Please, Can We Enter Into a Reasonable Dialogue?

I don't know what you're talking about, but I don't understand why you chose to ignore my points. Rather than address what I said, you attacked me personally. I'm happy to supply proof of my identity. My full name is Joseph Michael Moore, and I was born in Chicago, Illinois and spent most of my life living in Phoenix, Arizona. I am a writer by trade, mostly in social media and marketing, which is maybe why my writing on here was too much "puffery" as I read. I apologize for that, but I'm new here. I am happy to provide some evidence. Photo ID? Facebook page? Let me know.

Questioning my identity doesn't change what I said above. Did you even read what I wrote? There is evidence there to back up what I'm trying to say. I'm not even defending any specific edit that I made, because (as I said) I am still learning wikipedia rules, and I can see where I may have made some mistakes. All I am pointing out is the legitimacy of the "notability" of the page. Address what I have said please, not who you think I am. That would be appreciated. Otherwise, we are all just reduced to schoolyard name-calling, which is what happened in the past on this page's discussion, and I don't want to be any part of that. We are adults, so let's discuss this as such. Please? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJoeyMoore (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having a photo published by a notable publisher does not make someone notable. A photo credit is not "significant coverage". The argument that other similar articles exist is likewise invalid. I looked up the text of the article you mentioned earlier: here. It is not much more than a passing mention of Lough, and is mostly about Butcher. It couldn't be used to source much of anything about Lough, except for maybe one sentence about his views on non-technical approaches to photography. Gigs (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for shifting gears. I appreciate that. But what about the Smithsonian? The photo I linked to is housed in their permanent collection. It won the Windland Smith RIce International Awards, the same award that Peter Lik won in 2011. His wikipedia page lists it without citation at all, and I have provided you with a link to Lough's. I happen to know that Lik DID win that award, so I'm definitely not disputing his claim, but I'm just saying if an artist in any medium has a piece in the Smithsonian, they seem pretty noteworthy to me.

And one thing I didn't mention before: Popular Photography Magazine - October 2012 issue, volume 76, issue no 10. I have the issue in my hand, but you can also verify yourself. There is a seven page featured article on Rodney Lough Jr. alone and his work. Pages 53 - 56 and continued on page 104 - 105. I understand that, as you say, having a photo published once isn't noteworthy, but Pop Photo is a large publication, and according to its wikipedia page, it enjoys the "largest circulation of any imaging magazine," with a staff "twice the size of its nearest competitor." It reaches an estimated audience of more than two million people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Photography

In the documentation you can find that the noteworthiness of this pages was already challenged and established when Lough and the editors were arguing years ago. Since then there is even more evidence, such as this Pop Photo article. Can we lay this to rest now, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJoeyMoore (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Smithsonian with my comment: A photo credit is not "significant coverage". We require significant coverage in secondary sources. It's an achievement, sure, but we need coverage in order to write a verifiable article. I took a look at the article history for Peter Lik and it looks like there's editing with a conflict of interest occurring there as well, so please don't assume that just because something exists in that article that it's OK for this one. Please sign your comments with four tildes at the end, like ~~~~. Gigs (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies about the signature. I didn't know how to do that.

What about the recent seven page featured article in the largest photography magazine that has a readership of more than two million people? That doesn't count as significant coverage in secondary sources? They are maybe the largest printed authority on photography in the english speaking world. I would think a large feature in there counts. I realize that without a subscription you probably can't access this issue in their online archive, but what else can I do? Can someone at wikipedia order the back issue? ...is there even someone at wikipedia to do that? I honestly don't know how this works. Or would you like me to scan each page in and upload it to the internet? I can do that, but I imagine Pop Photo would have a problem with that. Is there another work around to provide this evidence? TheRealJoeyMoore (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That counts as coverage. It's always difficult to judge notability when there are sources that are not accessible online. Please don't post it on the Internet, as that would be copyright infringement. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 9 November 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. There are strong policy (including notability / authority) reasons to delete - especially hot on the heels of a similar AFD on the same article barely a month ago. Indeed, the content could have been speedy-deleted as a recreation. As an aside (and not related to the close reasoning) someone *could* create a similar encyclopedic article on "TWC's winter storm designation system" or something along the lines, and it *could* be valid (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012-13 U.S. winter storm season

2012-13 U.S. winter storm season (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)

There is no such thing as an official winter storm season other than to The Weather Channel. This is not recognized by the National Weather Service, and only The Weather Channel has begun naming winter storms. It is not mainstream, and it goes directly against the official governmental forecasting view that these storms should not be named. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012-13 United States winter storm season. It is too early to determine if the naming system will stick. Furthermore, the article excludes Hurricane Sandy, which produced more snow than "Athena". Even if the article wasn't based on The Weather Channel names, it would become too long. Would it include every storm that produces snow? That's not encyclopediac at all, as that would list in the hundreds. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - while the origin is hokey and commercially-driven by the Weather Channel, it's got legs. And the biggest reason: it may help public safety by increasing awareness of truly large winter storms that require preparation (like filling your gas tank before the power goes out). Where I live, we have had 3-week long blackouts due to monster winter storms in the Rocky Mtns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpinsl (talk • contribs) 01:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Obviously since there is only 26 assigned names, it will definitely not count the supposed "hundreds" of intense snow storms. Okay, for the last time, a major winter storm is not a couple of snowflakes, it is a Nor'easter or the same type of system, but in a different region. Such as Winter Storm Brutus, it is situated over southern Montana, where Athena was in the north east. If you want information on how a major winter storm is named, please visit this link ---> [2] ST✪12 21:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, let's be honest, if this gets deleted, people will probably just remake it. Inherently there is nothing wrong to have all this data. Really, it is just the names that are real problem since there is going to be probably more pages on Nor'Easters on Wiki now due to that naming scheme then there were previous years.--iGeMiNix 22:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a minute, Sandy was not part of the TWC naming system. Why is that there? This goes back to my point, that there could be hundreds of storms here. If you include Sandy, why not other snowstorms that don't get named by TWC? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you said in your first comment, Sandy needs to be added since it created a major winter storm impact. Did you read any of the information I provided in the link? A major winter storm is not a couple of snow flakes, it is a major storm that produces over a foot or so inches of snow over a widespread area. Sandy dumped a ton of snow in the Appalachian Mountains, Athena dumped a ton of snow throughout the northeast, and Brutus is currently bringing very large snow amounts across Montana and North Dakota. Your questions are making this winter storm naming seem a lot harder to understand than it really is. ST✪12 03:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That type of system is too localized, a MAJOR winter storm is something that is widespread. Plus, it was a tiny lake affect system, not major low pressure system. Again, your questions are making it a lot harder than it really is. Please, if you need questions answered, visit websites on major winter storms, or even the Weather Channel's website for that matter. ST✪12 03:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure where your getting at, but this article is on what is happening right now. If you want go ahead and create about 20 or more so article on united states blizzards, be my guest. Athena and Brutus are linked here, no "ifs", "ands", or "buts" about it. Sandy can be removed, it isn't entirely in the range of this article. Sandy should at least need to be mentioned with Athena. ST✪12 04:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's a bit of WP:CRYSTALBALLing to say that there will only be a maximum of 26 TWC-named winter storms. Maybe they'll end up with 10, maybe they'll overflow and end up with 100. There being 26 pre-assigned names means nothing; just ask Tropical Storm Zeta about that one. (And unlike hurricane naming, TWC's vague criteria and the fact that it's being used for the first time this "season" makes it even less certain.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NBC, ABC, FOX news are all onboard with the Weather Channel's naming system for now. CNN has used it in web, all others have used the names on TV and web. This is more than just a "for profit" venture by TWC, the naming is being used by most major news outlets now. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But if we're basing the article on The Weather Channel's naming system, wouldn't that mean that Hurricane Sandy should be left out? You're contradicting yourself in your very reasoning for the existence of the article. The article as written now isn't even factually accurate. It starts off, "The 2012–13 US winter storm season is the first winter storm season defined by The Weather Channel, to name noteworthy winter storms." Yet TWC didn't name Sandy, but it's included in the article. This makes it clear that even you, as the article's creator doesn't understand what should be included in the article. I appreciate what you're trying to accomplish here, but if even you can't accurately describe the article in the opening line, how can we go forward making this a factually accurate article as the season goes on? Inks.LWC (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that the naming system is used by The Weather Channel and is controversial with official agencies, such as the National Weather Service, is adequately addressed in the opening paragraph. Perhaps it could be renamed "2012-13 US Winter Storm Season (The Weather Channel)" to further punctuate that point, as well as to address the concern that every winter storm would have to be included.75.164.203.56 (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — 75.164.203.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • It doesn't need to be moved to that, many major broadcasting networks around the United States are adapting to this list. The "U.S." in the tile creates enough verification. ST✪12 02:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am reposting what I posted to the Athena talk page. This is one company naming these storms. Its parent company has enormous reach through its media properties but it is not being widely adapted by the major networks. In fact, even NBC is not widely adapting to this. "Things are being stated as facts and they are not. 75% of Americans do not even get The Weather Channel. Many Americans get their weather from local news. Out of networks and sites that provide just weather, TWC certainly has a major share of the audience. (especially since they bought WU) But even NBC, which owns The Weather Channel, is not using the name Athena. I have been studying the usage of the name Athena. If you look at the news sources the vast majority talk about how TWC is the one naming it and they are having to clarify that to reduce confusion. Very few sites of any kind simply state Athena without making that clarification. The sites that do are predominantly either a press release being carried on various news sites automatically, blogs or sites of TWC (including Weather Underground) or sites discussing this controversy. TWC is simply the largest company to date to try to name winter storms, not the first to try and do so in the U.S. These names are not by an official government agency or by any organization tasked to coordinate such an endeavor. TWC itself has stated there is ultimately no consistent meteorological basis for its reasoning. A significant storm that does not hit a heavily populated area may not get named while a less intense storm that hits a populated area is more likely to get a name. There is no meteorological benefit to this. You can't compare the amount of named winter storms one year to another year of named storms, if this private naming convention lasts until next year, because there is no consistency. With tropical systems they are named regardless of whether or not they impact someone. You can therefore compare data from year to year as it is based on something that is defined. A couple of people in a room at a single private company making arbitrary decisions whether to name something on a basis that is not even close to being purely meteorological in which they have a significant vested, profit making, interest is not something that Wikipedia should present in the same way as something as coordinated between the world's countries, through the WMO, as the naming of tropical cyclones are. Such coordination takes years to reduce confusion and so that there is a meteorological basis that is peer reviewed. One company a few months ago decided to do something to get ratings. If they really wanted to spearhead this, they should have coordinated with the government and other organizations in the meteorological community to come up with something that was worthwhile. They did not." Christopher Hollis (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can your prove (provide a link) for everything you just said? Thanks. ST✪12 04:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A link to what in particular? You can read about the WMO's naming of tropical cyclones here: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/tcp/Storm-naming.html There is a lot of information about that in various documents through the WMO if you wanted to get really, really deep into it. As for TWC's naming criteria for the storms, you can read information in various places. Jeff Masters blog is here: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2289 See the "The decision to name Athena" section. He is mentioned on TWC at times and TWC did buy WU, a site Jeff Masters co founded. But if you want something more official, see TWC's original press release: http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/why-we-name-winter-storms-20121001 The publication date changed for some reason on the article, but you can see from the comments it was published on October 2nd. You can see how the criteria is based on all sorts of things, such as expected impact, what day of the week and on air they have stated that storms are more likely to get a name if they affect a populated area as opposed to ones that do not affect a very populated area. "Therefore, naming of winter storms will be limited to no more than three days before impact to ensure there is moderate to strong confidence the system will produce significant effects on a populated area." "The process for naming a winter storm will reflect a more complete assessment of several variables that combine to produce disruptive impacts including snowfall, ice, wind and temperature. In addition, the time of day (rush hour vs. overnight) and the day of the week (weekday school and work travel vs. weekends) will be taken into consideration in the process the meteorological team will use to name storms." Reasons for naming include that it is more Tweetable. "As an example, hash tagging a storm based on its name will provide a one-stop shop to exchange all of the latest information on the impending high-impact weather system." The following statement is not turning out to be true: "Coordination and information sharing should improve between government organizations as well as the media, leading to less ambiguity and confusion when assessing big storms that affect multiple states." And the very last reason to name storms: "Finally, it might even be fun and entertaining and that in itself should breed interest from our viewing public and our digital users." Lets be honest, that is the real reason. "Coordination" may have occurred if TWC vetted this idea, but they did not and that is the problem. If everyone came together and decided to use a naming convention and then implemented it, there would be no problem, because that naming convention would have been based purely on meteorology and would have been an official method where people could understand the rational for why a storm is named, such as based on a certain expected criteria, a max snowfall, a lowest pressure, a highest wind or maybe something else. None of that happened. Christopher Hollis (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll repost what I posted there, with links to major news networks using the name Athena, along with some non major ones, and local ones:
[3] (I saw another one on CNN earlier, but I haven't been able to find it. If I see it, I'll post it) [4] [5] [6] (and now for some other sources): [7] [8] [9] and even insurance companies are catching on: [10] Also, see these links, NBC is calling it Athena. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First of all, there is no such thing as a superstorm. That is just a nickname created by news media (mostly TWC) to dumb it down for people who don't understand the meteorlogical name for the storm (post-tropical cyclone). The only reason it is super is because it hit New York City. Did you ever hear Superstorm Katrina? No. Secondly, wikipedia is not necessarily the sock puppet of the news media. While it does provide many sources, it does many foolish things as well. TWC wants those extra viewers so they create something that they think will attract more people to the channel. United States Man (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012-13 United States winter storm season. This was deleted just over a month ago; far too soon to have an identical article recreated with a different name. If this because more notable/valid at the end of these season, then remake the article. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong rename. The relevant authoritative source on this topic is NWS, and we need to follow them. To put it bluntly, this is a rebellion against scientific authority (NWS) by moneyed interests (TWC and other media) to drum up attention for their own purposes. Let's please put Wikipedia on the side of scientific authority.
That said, people are going to search on WP for "Winter Storm Brutus," and we need to have something for them to find. As was pointed out on the Athena talk page, we already have an example at Winter storms of 2008–09, and I recommend renaming this page along those lines. At the same time, inordinate detail must be greatly trimmed, and any mention of the TWC names as if they were legitimate must be removed. We must mention the TWC names, of course, but only in a brief pgh making clear their disputed status. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With these two edits, I have modified the article to stop implying that the privately applied names are legitimate. I stopped short of renaming it, though whether it is defined as a "winter storm season" is also attributable to no recognized weather authority, but rather to TWC. I hope this meets with approval. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is still the problem that the article has no chance of ever being complete. Is it going to include every storm that hits Alaska? For that matter, every single storm that produces snow? Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that completion is needed for a viable article. Only the storms that are notable (and I mean notable, not meeting some made-up criterion for snowfall) should be described. "Athena" is notable because of its human effect, derived from its proximity to Sandy. Perhaps all specifics regarding "Brutus" should be removed. But I think TWC's action, by itself, warrants the page, simply so people will have a place to go when they look to Wikipedia to answer the question, "What the heck is Winter Storm Athena?" --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every storm that TWC names. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is no longer focused on the TWC names though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then, that IMO should be changed. The media are using TWC names as well it seems. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree that YE has a point (see my links above). gwickwire | Leave a message 21:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we're making an article for every storm TWC names (which I still think we shouldn't), the title should reflect that. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We won't be making an article on every TWC storm, just the notable ones (Athena, because it was first, and others that have large impacts). gwickwire | Leave a message 21:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TWC is not an authority on the weather. It is a media outlet whose purpose is to make profit through advertising. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We deleted TOR:CON for the same reason, and I've seen news outlets use that occassionally for tornado risk. I think the same principle applies here. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we didn't. TOR:CON is only used by TWC. I have never seen it used in outside sources. This scheme, if that's what you want to call it, is being adopted by other news sources (see my links above) slowly but surely. Therefore, the discussion there doesn't apply. If you've seen other news outlets use TOR:CON, then please post links here so we can all see what you're talking about. Otherwise, it's apples to oranges. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was TOR:CON repudiated by relevant scientific authorities? There's another point of non-comparison. But this sub-thread is a bit of a rabbit-trail, as WP:OSE is not a valid argument in either direction. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion questions. These are just for me to see what kind of problems people are actually having with this article. For the benefit of all participating, please limit answers here to directly answering the question/s asked.

  1. Why do you say that the National Weather Service is the only source we should use for weather information? When the NWS/NHC was issuing warnings on Hurricane Sandy, every major news source said that they completely disagreed with not issuing hurricane warnings for the Northeast. Should we have trusted the NWS/NHC and not warned people about the hurricane? No, we went ahead and warned people of a hurricane, because that's what the majority of news networks were doing at the time, whereas the NWS only warned of "high winds" or (only once or twice) "hurricane 'force' winds".
  2. Why should we take the National Weather Service over many major news networks? If the names are being covered in reliable sources (major news networks), then why not call them by the names being covered? I have never once seen the name November 2012 nor'easter in the news media, or in a NWS product for that matter. People know it by Athena, as that's the only name that has been given to it. Any name we give it other than Athena borders on WP:OR, due to it being a name decided by Wikipedia editors, and not having been used by anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by gwickwire (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 November 2012

You obviously have no clue because what you stated in the first comment isn't true. It doesn't matter what news media says. And since the NHC didn't issue the hurricane warnings, the NWS issued hurricane force wind warnings for the area. United States Man (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane force wind warnings are only for marine areas. They cannot be issued inland, and weren't in this case. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And replying to the second comment, the NWS is a government agency and they have a strict naming system for hurricanes that is voted on at a meeting of the WMO. All of those sources you provided mentioned do say something about it being a nor'easter. Only 3-4 say anything about Athena. United States Man (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The naming system is different between areas (West Pac, East Pac/Atl, South Atl, Indian Ocean). Look at the fact that there is not a standard definition for a "Tropical Depression" or a "Tropical Storm", as it varies between basin. All of the sources clearly call it Athena at least once. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say Athena is getting the most coverage. On Google, November 2012 New England nor'easter gets 43.9 million hits, Winter Storm Athena gets 17 million hits. So, the argument that the TWC names have already caught on is incorrect. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Google stats has no impact on this decision. For all we know, 43.899 million of those hits on the not'easter could have been to Wikipedia (when the page was named that), or to Twitter (lots probably were), or to the NWS products itself. Google is not a reliable source, and the stats have no impact. Just because it is used on more pages doesn't mean it is used by more people. (Also, this hasn't been totally proven yet, but I've found that when you leave a search term in the URL, as you inadvertantly did in the Athena search, Google will come back with less sources than others sometimes) gwickwire | Leave a message 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, question number 1 is incorrect. The NWS specifically issued non-tropical products for the northeast so as to not confuse people. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, that caused more confusion. Look at the confusion between Chris Christie and the mayor of Atlantic City. If there were a hurricane warning, people would have left. Also, I never said why the NWS issued non-tropical products, only that they did. We reported on the non-tropical warnings, and warnings from other sources in that instance. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am terribly sorry, but I see no valid argument from you. Half of those sources don't say a thing about Athena, and don't try to tell me they do. And, also, the hurricane force wind warnings were issued inland for Sandy, and the naming and classifying for different basins does not have a single thing to do with this. To me you are just scaping the bottom and are trying to keep yourself from falling flat on your back. United States Man (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The hurricane force wind warning is a marine product. Not issued inland. If it was, prove it. You specifically said the WMO has a set criteria for naming. I proved you wrong by bringing up the different naming schemes/scales in different parts of the world. So it does have something to do with this. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They did issue flood warnings and hurricane force wind warnings. Can you post a source for people who were advocating that they issue tropical products? Inks.LWC (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First that link. That link does nothing. That link has no products on it. It's a map with the current radar. Sorry, I found the text. Here's the areas it was issued for:
/O.NEW.KOKX.GL.W.0018.121030T0454Z-121030T2200Z/
LONG ISLAND SOUND EAST OF NEW HAVEN CT/PORT JEFFERSON NY-
LONG ISLAND SOUND WEST OF NEW HAVEN CT/PORT JEFFERSON NY-
PECONIC AND GARDINERS BAYS-
SOUTH SHORE BAYS FROM JONES INLET THROUGH SHINNECOCK BAY-
MORICHES INLET NY TO MONTAUK POINT NY OUT 20 NM-
FIRE ISLAND INLET NY TO MORICHES INLET NY OUT 20 NM-
Hmm... Those are all marine zones. So, they issued hurricane force wind warnings, but for marine areas. Not inland. Here's some links advocating for tropical products: [11] [12] [13] [14]. Also, I'm too lazy to go find the permalinks, but Jim Cantore, Jeff Masters, and many other meteorologists posted on their twitter/blogs that they disagreed with the NWS's warning strategy. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because hurricane force wind warnings aren't issued for inland areas. That's what high wind warnings are for, which they did issue. Look, you've been proven to be factually inaccurate or confused about how warnings work several times so far... if you can't come up with links, that's not going to bode well come closing time for the AfD. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You never said anything about high wind warnings. And I know they issued those. Did you even look at the links I posted? And when have I been factually inaccurate? Please tell me so I may go correct myself. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on live television (which I can't really link to), many staff meteorologists of TWC, CNN, FOX, etc. had said they wished the NHC would issue hurricane warnings. Face it, this (naming of winter storms) isn't the first time the majority of news media has gone against the NWS/NHC. Stop thinking that NWS/NHC is king. They aren't. It would be undue weight to use the other name instead of the most common covered name. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure due and undue weight refers to putting something insignificant into an article and leaving something big out. United States Man (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it refers to putting weight on something that doesn't deserve it. Such as having an article that is only about the "nor'easter" when by now most, if not all, major news sources have referred to it as "Athena". We'd have 90% of an article (the naming it nor'easter) over 10% (the NWS) of the sourcing, and 10% of the article (the Athena) over 90% of the sourcing (major news). That's undue weight to the NWS. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In your Question number 1, you said, "Should we have trusted the NWS/NHC and not warned people about the winds? No, we went ahead and warned people of hurricane-force winds..." The NWS did warn people of hurricane-force winds. They issued hurricane force wind warnngs for the marine areas, and high wind warnings for winds up to 75 mph for the inland areas. So I'm not understanding how you're implying that they didn't warn people of the winds and that only the media was. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I came out like that, I was thinking something totally different. I have changed the question accordingly. What I meant was, should we have warned people of an impending "high wind event"? No, we warned them of an impending hurricane. Because that's what it was, and that's what major news sources saw it as. We went against the NWS/NHC because major news sources said differently. The government is not king. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that's where you're wrong... it wasn't a hurricane (at landfall). It was an post-tropical cyclone.

Inks.LWC (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it was a hurricane at landfall. I said there was an impending hurricane (up until 4 hrs before landfall it was). And news networks called it a hurricane until right before landfall, if not calling it a hurricane after landfall for some time. Don't put words into my mouth please. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an impending hurricane either. It was an impending post-tropical storm. No model had it predicted to be a hurricane at landfall, therefore, it was not an impending hurricane. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that. I am saying that the news media didn't say "Oh, a post tropical cyclone will hit the Northeast later this week." They said "A hurricane is heading for the Northeast". They called it a hurricane. Not me. I'm not disputing the models, just saying that the news media called it a hurricane. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But if the media did that, they were wrong (from a purely scientific standpoint). I would argue that we shouldn't base our articles off the media if we know their claims to be scientifically wrong. And with that, I'll end this little side thread, as we seem to be approaching the subject from two different paradigms (so we're both "right" in our own paradigm), and this thread's gotten long enough. ;) Inks.LWC (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. I can't believe we're arguing about whether NWS made a mistake or not. They're scientists. We know that scientists make mistakes, because human knowledge is finite. But science is the best we've got for this kind of thing. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However, would it have made sense for us to go with their mistake on warnings when most major news sources still called it a hurricane (even after the NHC declared it post-trop, and after landfall)? gwickwire | Leave a message 22:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Your question concerns whether the scientific criteria were correctly applied in a particular situation. The question before this AfD is who defines what the scientific criteria are in the first place. The answer to that question is scientists, not the media. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The hurricane naming system exists for valid scientific reasons, and the criteria for naming a storm are well-defined and rigorous. That is how scientists work. What we have here is a media corporation doling out names because it's what works best for their bottom line. That's how media moguls work. This system has been specifically repudiated by the relevant scientific authority as unwarranted. Because we are a reference for what goes on in the media, we should report these goings on. But in now way should we contribute to their legitimation in the public eye (nor, per WP:NPOV should we unduly denigrate). --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, more news networks have accepted "Athena" and "Brutus" than "insert other name here" for the storms. Sorry, but more reliable sources say "Athena" and "Brutus" than "nor'easter". If reliable sources legitimize the names, then we have to go by those sources and legitimize them. Also, can you please provide links to the WMO, AMA, AMetSoc, or a notable college meteorology program saying that they are not legitimate? Because those are the relavent scientific authority as independent non-partisan organizations, not the Government of the United States (which is partisan and dependent on the government for funds). gwickwire | Leave a message 22:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the quantity of sources that counts, but the quality. The media is not an authoritative source when it comes to defining the criteria for naming storms, especially when they disagree with the only body of scientists that has spoken regarding the matter.
Can you please provide links to the WMO or AMetSoc or other authoritative body of meteorologists saying that the names are legitimate? If you could, I would take notice. Silence does not imply support. One body of scientists has spoken, and that's what we need to follow.
Finally, you are sorely mistaken in your insinuation that government-funded science agencies are partisan. The enormous majority of significant scientific research done in the world today is largely funded by governments. The anti-government bias you displayed with that comment is simply appalling, and I hope other editors in this discussion take notice of it. I will say no more about it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a part of the DOC, which is partisan. Run by someone appointed by the president. That's all I mean. TWC is not run by someone appointed by Obama, nor is NBC/CBS/insert other news here. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the Secretary of Commerce is far removed from the people actually generating scientific conclusions at the NWS. The latter folks are civil servants, actually prohibited by law from engaging in politics, and believe me, those laws are enforced (I am familiar with a different U.S. government science agency as part of my job). To cast aspersions on their conclusions based on their employment by the government is simply untrue and inappropriate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay okay. Their politics has nothing to do with it, my other point still stands. They are not the authority, the WMO/AMA/AMetSoc/some college programs are. That's why the WMO/AMA/AMetSoc exist. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not really. The job of a scientific society is mainly to provide a forum for discussion among scientists and sometimes to speak to the public on behalf of the scientific community, for example on matters of policy. Scientific societies almost never settle questions of scientific controversy, because that is not their purpose, and a word on such a controversy from a college program would just be the non-authoritative opinion of one person or group. Now a national academy will sometimes speak on behalf of the scientific community to settle a scientific controversy, but only on major issues when requested to do so by the government.
The question before this AfD is both scientific and practical, and in fact NWS is uniquely qualified to answer it. While the organizations you and I mention above have a role in determining what are appropriate scientific methods, NWS is staffed by scientists whose task is to apply scientific methods to the weather as it happens in the U.S., to provide the American people with the information they need to deal safely with the weather. Their role can be compared to that of the USGS for earthquakes and volcanoes. In the course of discharging this duty, the NWS has determined that naming tropical storms and hurricanes is useful, and that naming winter storms is not. We would do well to pay attention and respect that determination. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The NHC falls under the WMO, as shown by them submitting names for approval, retirement, etc. Other parts of NOAA/NWS fall under WMO as well. The WMO is the world's meteorological agency qualified to answer it. The NWS is only a 'part' of the WMO, the local part for the US, if you want to look at it that way. The WMO has endorsed the naming of winter storms in Europe, and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't do the same here. Again, saying the NWS is uniquely qualified is not only undue weight but also violating WP:RS as if the NWS is uniquely qualified then it cannot be substantiated by other sources. The NWS is not uniquely qualified. TWC, AccuWeather, and other agencies are staffed by meteorologists as well, and their meteorologists are certified the same way as the NWS's. Your comparison to the USGS is irrelevant, as the USGS is the only "world organization" for earthquakes, and it itself is the equivalent of the WMO. Your last sentence is saying that we should only pay attention to and respect the judgement of one organization over the major weather network in the US, and major news networks in the United States. That is not how Wikipedia runs. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, to be exact, the NHC falls under NOAA, which in turn falls under the WMO. If the WMO was going to endorse the names, they would have done so by now. In Europe, the WMO (or localized divisions) name the storm themselves. They don't have a news media company naming the storms for them. That is why they haven't endorsed the naming in the United States. The TWC is not official, the WMO (per NOAA and NWS) is. The TWC naming these storms is like CBS or NBC naming the storms. Would you trust them just because they named a storm when the NWS is actually the one who is tracking and issuing warnings on the storms? I don't think you would. United States Man (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the NWS is the U.S. branch of the WMO, then why would the WMO comment on this U.S.-centric question when its U.S. branch has already done so? Your insistence that silence from any scientific organization be treated as support is bizarre.
Furthermore, your comments on WP:Undue and WP:RS are so far out in left field that I am not going to engage with them. And as for your last sentence, au contraire. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 10:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have never figured out the undue weight accusation. As well as why he insists on using these unofficial names. TWC is not official, they are news media. TWC does not forecast the weather (however they think they do), the NWS does. United States Man (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for gwickwire's question #2, a descriptive title is the best option when no authoritative proper name exists. Full stop. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Authoritative proper name... Well, considering most major news networks are using Athena/Brutus/TWC name, then I think that makes it authoritative. Or at the very least, not having the WMO/AMA/AMetSoc/college programs denouncing the names lends something to their authoritativeness.. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, silence does not imply support. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I take it that you do not object to my explanation of why November 2012 nor'easter would be the appropriate name to use if my view of the name "Athena" were to be accepted? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does a US winter storm include the ones that impact the US but are named by Berlin when they become European windstorms? I ask as you guys seem to be saying as long as its named by TWC its in.Jason Rees (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that instance, I would think we would leave it as its US name (if it got one) in the article, and by that point it would have its own longer article to explain the effects on Europe. If a European agency names a storm, it may be stronger than when it was in the US, or maybe there's a different reason for them to that TWC didn't have here. In final, if it was named by TWC, it would be included in the US article, if not, then it would have to be included in its own article. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TWC did this for publicity, can't seem to make gwickwire understand that. Since he isn't active in the project, he doesn't understand that thw NWS is the only official source regarding weather. I don't know why he insists on using something unofficial. United States Man (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, who says that it's the only official source? That seems a little bit WP:RS violationaly, as that would be saying that the NWS is the only reliable source on weather, which is absolutely not true. And how can you tell me I am not active in the project? Don't attack me, or I will not hesitate to get an admin involved. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, USM, I think you went a bit overboard there on a couple points. Firstly, please address the edits, not the editor. I recommend you add a strikethrough to your comments from "Since" to "thw". Secondly, other official sources regarding weather exist, such as AMetSoc and scientific and forecasting bodies in other countries. On the other hand, NWS is both the primary scientific body with boots on the ground regarding U.S. weather, and the only scientific authority that has actually spoken to the question at hand. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the backup on the attacky thing up there first of all. :) Second of all, I'd trust a society of "registered" or "licensed" (depending on organization) meteoroligists more than I'd trust meteorologists from a naturally partisan organization (NWS) that the meteorologists are paid to work for. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am, again, completely boggled that you refer to the NWS as "naturally partisan". These are civil servants, not political appointees. What evidence do you have that they have ever behaved other than as responsible scientists? And what do you mean by "partisan"? Do you mean Democrat/Republican in some way, or somehow anti-media? I just don't get it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to this above. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gwickwire, a majority of the media is not calling these storms by name. You keep saying that as if it were the truth. It is not. Aside from TWC, I have seen nothing on television that calls it by its name. The names are not broadly displayed on major news websites. I did see some local media stations poking fun at the naming system from clips online, but no one simply calling it by name. People are not taking the names seriously. The links you posted were not the main articles for these storms on those websites. The main articles did not contain a name at all, they said nor-easter. A single mention in passing on some other part of the site, more bloggish in nature, is not a majority of the media calling it by a name. Please do not rename the article again. The meteorlogical community is very, very against a single private company naming these storms. If the names were picked up by the media broadly, then we would have something to talk about, but they are not. Also, The Weather Channel, NBC, Weather Underground and Comcast are all the same thing. Any NBC stations may also be under the same influence, though I really have not seen it yet. The NBC video clip reported that TWC was going to start naming winter storms. NBC owns TWC. That is not neutral. But even NBC as a whole did not call this storm by a name. It was relegated to a few mentions online. This should be speedily changed back relegating any names to a minor blurb at best. Wikipedia can't choose to go with one single private company over the the government and the rest of the meteorological community. The names are not being picked up by the major media so it's insane that this is still an issue. TWC is confusing people and that extends to another new product they have. TWC actually has a new product called a "Winter Weather Watch". There are official NWS products called "winter storm watch" and "winter storm warning", but TWC felt the need to create a new product called "Winter Weather Watch". How confusing is that for people? See TWC video here: as. Not inland. Here's some link They have their own confusing tropical versions too which I didn't realize TWC was actually calling those an actual product. The NWS is tasked with providing official watches and warnings. That is simply the way it is. Nothing else is official. However, that doesn't mean you can't have other organizations provide weather coverage. For coordination however, you have one official agency which everyone else recognizes. And now you are attacking the NWS... Christopher Hollis (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you have no authority to tell me not to rename the storms. Second of all, their "Winter Weather Watch" is not a product, its a graphic showing their viewers where impacts (snow/rain/wind) are going to be. Not an actual text product emitted. Who tasks the NWS with official warnings? Can you post me a link to a law governing that? No, because one doesn't exist. You saying nothing else is official violates WP:RS, that states it must be covered in multiple verifiable sources. If the NWS is the only official source, then there cannot be another reliable source, and it fails RS. Wikipedia considers the official topic to be the one most reliably covered in the most news sources. I'd also like to add that you may have a conflict of intrest here, if you happen to be the same Christopher Hollis that runs tropicalatlantic.com. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
gwickwire, I don't make money from tropicalatlantic.com. It is a non profit site. (Though admittedly, I speak with a lot of people in the government, NWS/NOAA, Air Force, Navy, etc and also in the news media.) I'm not even really against naming winter storms necessarily, although I don't think it is necessary. However, that is my opinion and does not matter in terms of this discussion. To be fair, I don't know if you work for TWC or not, but even that would not matter. The facts are that this is not an official naming convention and that major news outlets are not using the names. Only NBC, which owns TWC, has a mention on its site more prominent than I have seen from anyone else. (still not the headline though) And I have still not seen anything on television talk about the storms having a name, other than TWC. You just attacked the NWS and you think I am the one with a conflict of interest? You just said this: "Second of all, I'd trust a society of 'registered' or 'licensed' (depending on organization) meteoroligists more than I'd trust meteorologists from a naturally partisan organization (NWS) that the meteorologists are paid to work for." How does that statement help. Lets stick to the facts. Are the names prominent out there in the media? The answer is no. That should be the basis of whether TWC's list of names is at the forefront or if we go with how Wikipedia has done it in the past. Lets stick to that please and not get sidetracked. Christopher Hollis (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never once attacked the NWS. Don't say I have. When I say naturally partisan I mean that they are paid to work for a government. Governments are partisan by nature. Honestly, NBC has one of the least prominent mentions of this name that I have seen. Please take a look at my links again, because all of them mention Athena as the name of the storm. I haven't even gone into my list of links about Brutus in the media. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I consider your statement to be an attack, but that is my opinion. Others can judge it how they may. In case you don't know, NOAA/NWS is part of the DOC. Here is your source and it is all over the web if you need additional verification: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2010-title15/USCODE-2010-title15-chap9-sec313/content-detail.html Some of what I posted got messed up when I tried to post a link. Let me try again. Here is a video where TWC actually called the "Winter Weather Watch" a product: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1496007759001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAAQxtuk~,N9g8AOtC12eDhj9Li1v3hu9fCeX8Osz7&bctid=1910489053001 I am big on sourcing things. Christopher Hollis (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent). In case you don't know, the DOC is part of the government. They aren't using the word product like that. I could say that CNN has an election calculator product on their website, does that mean I'm trying to undermine the authority of the government to determine the electoral calculations? No. Your website provides a product, which in your case is information on tropical systems. TWC provides a product, which is a graphic showing the areas to be affected by a storm. They are not trying to undermine the NWS, or else they would stop using NWS WWAs (Watches, Warnings, Advisories) on air, and issue their own WWAs. They don't. They just take NWS info and supplement it by creating a graphic out of the impact. What's wrong with that? gwickwire | Leave a message 01:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The naming of winter storms is confusing some people. I was even just reading an article about whether this will mean people will have higher deductibles because there is a "name" attached to the storm. It appears that most all policies are written so that the government has to name the storms, not TWC. In addition, some of the products TWC is coming out with are very near the name of official watches. Which is the real watch? "winter storm watch" or "winter weather watch"? Most people will be confused. This is why Wikipedia should go with what is official. A private company is confusing things and this could be reduced in part if Wikipedia went with how it has always been done. Search for "winter storm athena" on Google and you will see most of the results are from TWC/WU or have to clarify that it is TWC who named the storm. Christopher Hollis (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just agree to disagree on this, because this doesn't really relate to the deletion of the article, just the way Wikipedia will name storms :) gwickwire | Leave a message 01:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is related. How Wikipedia names these storms has much to do with if this page should exist. This page is framed completely around TWC's naming of storms. TWC is a private agency and has not coordinated with the government or other organizations before moving ahead on this. Although that is one point, the other and perhaps equally important point in terms of Wikipedia is that the names are not widely used. In this particular instance, I think Wikipedia should wait to see if the names become broadly used in the media before naming articles after TWC's names and beforing framing an article around the names like this one does. This is better than going ahead and naming the articles after TWC's names and having this page framed completely around that while waiting to see if the names are broadly used by the media. This page should be created only if the names are broadly used and not before then. By broadly, I mean most major news organizations, excluding NBC, use TWC's name when they describe a storm and having it be on such things as the front page of major news sites and on the national news on the broadcast networks. This is a major change that TWC has tried to implement on their own and Wikipedia should take a wait and see approach before using TWC's names or having a page which is framed around those names. Because this is a major change, I strongly believe that is the best course of action especially considering the NWS is not using the names. But yes, we will have to agree to disagree. Christopher Hollis (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this should be usespaced, and we wait to see how much interest the TWC names get? The European Windstorm names get widespread coverage, and have been existence for several years, whereas this is the first year for TWC. The fact that the TWC is naming should probably be in the TWC article, at least, until we can see the nature of the names. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One question: Would it be possible to keep the article but drop the names? TornadoLGS (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is, how would you determine what you would keep? Would it include every storm that affects Alaska? Every storm that drops snow in the country? That is an impossible list to finish, not to mention be unencyclopediac. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed earlier, we would only include ones with significant impacts, not just every storm system. The lack of naming isn't a problem with the annual tornado articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a database that keeps track of tornadoes. There isn't such a database for snow storms, if we included every storm that dropped any amount of snow. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If keeping the article is dependent on keeping the names then I would opt for deleting it. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TornadoLGS on the matter. United States Man (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, since there is only 26 names on the list, it obviously doesn't include systems that are tiny and insignificant. Tornadoes for that matter number in the thousands each year, only destructive ones earn names of the area they decimate, such as "Joplin". A MAJOR winter storm, for the last time, is a very large, significant system that causes regional impacts. It doesn't include every storm that dumps any amount of snow. Please educate yourself on what a MAJOR winter storm really is. ST✪12 16:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are very wrong in stating that tornadoes get a name. In no way, shape, or form does a tornado get any kind of name. A major winter storm could dump 4 feet of snow in Alaska and would not get named. Your argument is invalid, because for one: TWC is unofficial, and two: if the NWS were naming these systems (which will never happen) then even systems in Alaska would get named. It wouldn't just be systems that affect a major city. United States Man (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You assume that Anchorage isn't a major city? It's a pretty major city in my book. Also, tornadoes do get a name. "Joplin Tornado", "Birmingham Tornado", and "Tri-state Tornado" are just a few examples. Alaska is used to getting a snowstorm at certain times, and buildings, roads, and travel networks are built to withstand this. The Northeast is not built to withstand snowstorms. In this way, a snowstorm in the Northeast, or even Montana, would be more damaging than one in Anchorage or another part of Alaska. Don't speculate on why the NWS isn't naming this, or if they won't. Way back when, the NWS didn't name hurricanes (other than numbers), and now they do. Things change. You can't stop it, you just roll with it (for lack of a better term). gwickwire | Leave a message 16:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they were going to name the storms, they wouldn't have denounced the names. And as for the tornadoes, I was thinking about actual names (such as hurricane names). United States Man (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent). Before the advent of hurricane names, the NHC denounced others giving unofficial names to hurricanes. I understand the tornado name issue, but still. The NWS has taken on those names after they are given by news media. I see no definite reason they won't eventually do the same here (other than previous denouncement). It's happened before. gwickwire | Leave a message 17:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said it, unofficial. The names of hurricanes were unofficial just as the winter storm names are unofficial. The NWS will not use these names because they have already been denounced. It they did name these storms then these names would not be used. United States Man (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the NHC now gives names to hurricanes. And also, they are using unofficial names given first by media. "San Ciricao Hurricane" (sp), "Galveston Hurricane", "Cyclone Catarina" are just some examples. gwickwire | Leave a message 17:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that is beside the point that the NWS has expressed its disapproval of the names in question here. If the NWS decides to recognize the TWC names in the future, then we can make the appropriate changes on Wikipedia, and I'd say that's a pretty big if. Until such time we should not follow TWC on this matter, and redirects and mentions of the names will suffice. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer this: Why is the NWS above multiple reputable news sources, independant/private meteorologists, and other sources of information? That's undue weight at its worst. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that use of these names is widespread is also being challenged. From what I've been able to see the articles you link to are minor ones, not major broadcasts, even if they are in some way affiliated with major networks. Additionally, many of the articles you link to simply mention that TWC is naming the systems rather than referring to them by these names. Such articles as those don't really add support to the names as this move on the part of TWC is newsworthy regardless of whether the names are valid. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wah? I linked like every word up there to a link. Then it told me to fix the links, so I did, and it took them out. Welp, tomorrow I will come back with links. Sorry! gwickwire | Leave a message 00:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And your grounds for a strong keep are? Lukeno94 (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unofficial naming scheme, with limited media usage at this point. The majority of media coverage appears to be discussion of this new naming system, rather than coverage of the winter storm season itself. There seems to be plenty of precedent for going with what official storm naming bodies call weather systems, and the NWS declined the use of a naming system in this case. (Alternately, move to "The Weather Channel's 2012 - 2013 U.S. winter storm season", but that's a bit silly...and kinda my point.) If the concept of TWC's storm names and their definition of the winter storm season comes into more widespread use, then this page can certainly be recreated. And the individual names can be created as redirects, when appropriate, and included in any articles on the storms, of course. (Another concern is that editors will lean towards determining notability based on whether or not TWC decides to name a storm, which is WP:UNDUE. Winter Storm Brutus already has a section, possibly for this reason alone since it doesn't seem particularly notable otherwise. Almost all notable coverage under that name seems to be from TWC; the Billings Gazette appears to have initially used it, then later removed the "Brutus" name from those articles.) Edit: This goes both ways, too. If TWC decides not to name a storm, then it has to be left out of the list and the casualties/damages total. So TWC basically becomes the definitive sole source on how many people were killed over a winter storm season? WP:UNDUE again. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed with db8 above. The storms in this article are listed solely on the basis of TWC's unofficial naming scheme. A list which has been rejected by the NWS, which is the real authority on such matters. I don't see how we can keep this article and avoid both WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. We have already decided to reject the name "Athena". TornadoLGS (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Technically speaking, the "2012-13 US winter storm season" is a product by The Weather Channel, just as the "2012 Atlantic hurricane season" is a product of the NWS. Therefore, I don't see what the problem is with keeping the page as long as it's made clear that it is a Weather Channel-only designation. It's a good way to keep strong storm systems organized. After all, isn't an encyclopedia supposed to be organized? --71.224.222.242 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The NWS and NHC are branches of an official administration and have well-recognized authority. TWC is a commercial enterprise with no real authority beyond its subsidiaries. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:29, 13 November 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. Marginal notability, but no consensus to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Mary Kleefeld

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

Non-notable artist who fails WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:CREATIVE, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BK. The entry is purely promotional, written by her friend David Jay Brown, who also enjoys puffing himself up on his own article [15]. The tag for WP:COI on Carolyn Mary Kleefeld has been hanging there for three and a half years without anybody doing anything about it. It's time to defend the integrity of Wikipedia and remove this WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search for news articles brings up scads of brief mentions of upcoming events, but very, very little that I was actually able to add to the article. A more general search didn't show anything else to prove that she passes any of the various versions of notability. She's come closer than a lot of other authors that have been brought to AfD, but she falls just short of being so notable that she merits a Wikipedia article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible delete - Although, like Tokyogirl79 said, I found event listings but I also found this news article that mentions her husband (who is also an artist), this, this (1981 Los Angeles Times review) and this (she won a local competition but this wouldn't be sufficient for Wikipedia). After going through 10 pages of Google News archives results, it seems she is more known as a gallery artist rather than in-depth coverage suitable for Wikipedia, and it's not surprising because it seems she was more active in the 1970s-1980s. Google Books provided mainly results for her work but I found this, which provides a little information about her life. My own search provided a Monterey County Weekly article that, not only supports her British birth, but provides details such as her work being translated to Romanian. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to WP:CREATIVE #4 "The person's works .. (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition.. or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." For (a): there was an exhibition at the Frederick R. Weisman Museum of Art, Califorinia,[16][17] Pepperdine University in 2008. It resulted in a catalogue-book[18] with commentary by museum curator and director, Michael Zakian, PhD. The Weisman Foundation, which funds the museum, owns works by[19] Cezanne, Picasso, Warhol, Lichtenstein, and Kandinsky and others, loaning these works out to other museums; thus I'm considering it a notable/major museum and gallery in the art world. One of the pieces, "Zen Face", was gifted to the Weisman museum by collector Ken Czachor for its permanent collection[20], though it is not "several notable museums" for point (d) above unless someone can find additional "notable museums" with works in permanent collection. But it does pass on point (b) if you agree the Weisman counts as a "significant" exhibition. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a University not a college. The gallery is part of a museum that contains major works of art on loan from the Weisman Foundation which funds the museum and has also funded the New Orleans Museum of Art the San Diego Museum of Art.[21] There is no inherent problem if a museum is located in a University, there are important museums and art galleries in Universities, just as there are important research labs in the sciences. Universities are important centers of the arts and sciences. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Almost all of them have galleries. So how "significant" can it be? The guideline calls for "significant exhibitions." Qworty (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Weisman Foundation also has galleries in New Orleans Museum of Art the San Diego Museum of Art, and they own an important art collection. It's significant for an artist to have an exhibition at a Weisman Foundation gallery. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other, more prominent galleries where she has not shown are irrelevant, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Qworty (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to demonstrate a Weisman gallery is significant in the art world. It would be strange to say Weisman has 5 galleries and some are significant and others not. So you look at the organization as a whole: is Weisman significant in the art world? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's illogical to argue that everything they do is "significant" simply because they are Weisman. Like any entity, they are wholly capable of doing things that are both "significant" and "insignificant." And what has been done with this artist is clearly insignificant. Qworty (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where an artist holds an exhibition is a primary factor in determining how significant the exhibition is. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:22, 11 November 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. Fails the English Wikipedia WP:CORP requirements (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonel

Sonel (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 indications of notability - fails WP:CORP. Unreferenced. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It is unreferenced as there does not appear to be any. The company is publicly traded [22] in Poland; however, I fear that any notable references are in Polish and therefore will be difficult to find for those on en.Wikipedia. Would suggest listing this in articles on Poland and hopefully someone can locate and get the article sourced (appropriately of course) prior to deletion. --UsedEdgesII (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Can somebody show me Yellow Pages, where is company's history etc.? Or show me difference beetween the side about Sonel and the side about Megger or Fluke - for me, it's discrimination, that is the EN wikipedia's place for the British and US Companies, and there is no place for Polish company. (jagokogo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagokogo (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 November 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:NOTNEWS topic that is now being sufficiently covered at University_of_Mississippi#Recent_history where it belongs (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ole miss riots of 2012

Ole miss riots of 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC) ...William 19:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
good-faith confusion
Nothing in the link you posted indicates that UsedEdgesII is blocked, or a sockpuppet. It is, in fact, a request by UsedEdgesII to block another, allegedly sockpuppeting, user. complainer (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An editor in that discussion said "The person who filed this report and the SPI is a sock of User:Morning277." If "this report" refers to that section, then "the person who filed this report" is indeed UsedEdgesII. But UEII isn't mentioned in the linked SPI. I'll ask that editor to clarify. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That turned out to not be necessary. Just read a bit closer. UsedEdges is, in fact, a blocked sockpuppet. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia may not be a newspaper, but this is not a particularly transient piece of news, and it's already a respectably-sized internet phenomenon regardless of that. complainer (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are you kidding me? There's absolutely no reason to expect WP:PERSISTENCE for such a minor event, so WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (#2 especially) is legitimate reason to delete. If anyone is still talking about this a month from now, I'll make the article myself. --BDD (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentYou really don't expect a bunch of supposedly educated students going around chanting "nigger" and burning the president in effigy on the same site of one of the most famous Civil Rights Movement riots, 50 years later to be something people will remember? I don't want to get into a WP:CRYSTALBALL discussion, but if you stick to your promise, you'd better make some backup. And no, I am not kidding you. complainer (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between a memorable event and a notable one. I remember this, but it's unlikely it could stand as its own article, despite the fact that most news outlets around the country mentioned it for a day or two. If anything serious comes of this, it may merit mention at Assassination threats against Barack Obama or similar articles. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- not noteworthy enough per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. It may be noteworthy enough for mention in the University of Mississippi article but not one standing on its own. Kierzek (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is worldwide WP:RS available for this article, far more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article such as this outline much more than the event that actually took place. This article explains how the University feels about what happened. This is a situation that the school wishes to be better understood. The point of wikipedia is to spread knowledge. It is important to the faculty and staff of the University of Mississippi for people to be informed that as a University, we do condone racism and are embarrassed by it. Please keep this article, but help edit if that is what it needs. This article has been edited by current Ole Miss students of all majors, backgrounds, and ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hottytoddy1 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, or possible redirect/merge. The incident got a fair bit of media coverage, but it really seems to come down to some petty hooliganism by a few dozen drunk racist frat kids on an election night. It might be worth a brief mention in the Ole Miss article at the most. -Helvetica (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep - WP:NOTNEWS is often badly abused, but it seems to make sense this time. It has driven reactions and it is worth a mention somewhere, but given the sourcing so far I am unsure it deserves a complete article. I can't say however -it depends on the suitable targets and the depth of coverage. So far what is in the article could be merged, but if someone is interested on working on this and coverage multiplies, it could well be a stand-alone article. --Cyclopiatalk 14:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article about non-noteworthy incident. AutomaticStrikeout 00:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Are you kidding? Several students gather to protest and you call it "riots"? This is a totally unimportant event, like many of such protests across the world. Wikipedia is not a tabloid! - Darwinek (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to University of Mississippi under a section for the students or events. This is a little premature and after fleshing out the article with some sources, I'm thinking that it probably won't lead to very much. It's easy to say that "______ and _______ reported on this in _____ country", but ultimately even the reports of the riot are starting to say "gee, it really wasn't a riot really..." It might be worth a mention on the college page at most, but ultimately I don't see this having any true lasting notability at this point in time. It doesn't help that all of the sources tend to reference back to one another and few of them really have any die-hard concrete evidence that all of what happened actually happened at Ole Miss. It's clear that you have a bunch of stupid drunk morons shouting some racist stuff, but I'm not sure if this is really enough to merit an article at this time. If anyone wants to userfy it, that's fine, but I think that an article just on the "riot" is premature. It should definitely be watched, though. Or maybe incubated.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fleshed the article out more and sourced it appropriately, but doing so really only hammered home that this doesn't really have enough lasting notability at this moment to where I'd say that it should have its own article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that a merge would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Was this little gathering really significant enough as to be a defining point in the history of the University of Mississippi? I'm not sure we'd consider that a valid action at a school without a history of racism. Whether that history makes this relevant or prejudices us to think so is, I suppose, up for discussion. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It really should be deleted; I only suggested the alternative (of a brief mention in the school article) as a alternative if consensus was to keep. However, it would need to be re-write with all the facts to meet NPOV, as you point out, BDD. Kierzek (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, the whole point of this event is that the University of Mississippi is quite the opposite of a school without a history of racism; it is, in fact, possibly the university with the best-known history of racism in the United States, chiefly because of the Ole Miss riot of 1962. But this is not the point. The point is whether the event is notable, i.e. whether it is covered by sources (which it is) and complies to wikipedia's 1000 other inclusion policies, in this case chiefly WP:NOTNEWS. WP:NPOVis about how to write not about whether to write. If this event blackens the reputation of Ole miss, well, that's WP:TOUGHSHIT, which is an unwritten, but rather obvious policy. complainer (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per basic common sense. What do we have here? A few students got drunk and got a bit unruly, and some people called it a "riot" on a web forum. That sort of thing happens every day, and hardly merits the status of news, let alone meeting encyclopic standards which go beyond mere news. If for any bizarre reason this is kept then it needs to be renamed: "Ole miss" is pure gobbledygook to many, if not most, of our readers. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? It happens every day? Every day, students at colleges all over the country get together to call the president "nigger" and burn his photo? So much for WP:NOTNEWS, since it is certainly news to me. Qworty (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try reading the sources. They say only that a handful of students were drunk and that one or two may have shouted racist remarks. All of the reliable sources make the point that the description of this event as a riot is incorrect. I have nothing against people drinking alcohol (I do so regularly myself), and everything against the shouting of racist remarks, but both are things that happen all the time on campuses and elsewhere so are nothing worthy of an encyclopedia article . Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we merge it, let's not forget to add something about the KKK rally they had at Ole Miss recently [23]. I haven't examined the Ole Miss article closely yet to determine where it should go, but it would be appropriate to put all of these racist incidents together. Qworty (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It might be time to make an article entitled Racism at Ole Miss or Racism at the University of Mississippi since Ole Miss has a recorded history of it beyond the norm for other colleges. That way it can be a catch-all for episodes such as this as well as responses from other people when it comes to racism there, such as the candlelight vigil or whatnot. This one particular incident might not merit an individual entry at this time, but it would be good in an overall article. If we do create it, I have a feeling that it will be one prone to vandalism and "good faith" edits from people who want to distance themselves from their fellow students that do the stuff like that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had been thinking about that too. Its existence would certainly upset some people, but I'm reminded of WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. Tread carefully... --BDD (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the present article does not stand, I would support the creation of Racism at the University of Mississippi. We shouldn't shy away from creating it just because apologists for the university might vandalize it. Qworty (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 12 November 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. Fails WP:MUSIC per consensus (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crown the Empire

Crown the Empire (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)

Band does not meet notability guidelines at WP:BAND. Given sources are just simple announcements. Nothing on google to establish notability. noq (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Found this during NPP and was about to nuke it. Badly fails WP:BAND as far as I can tell. §FreeRangeFrog
  • Weak Delete / Redirect - I believe the band does meet notability as a band as they have released two or more albums under a major record label. However, they still need to have the sources to back it up. No sources, no notability. There are many trivial mentions [24] but unfortunately they will not count towards notability. An alternative would be to redirect to Rise Records until there are reliable sources (assuming that they will be covered by reliable and independent sources in the future) at which time the article could be recreated. --UsedEdgesII (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They have to date released one EP and no albums - an album is planned but has not been released. The complete lack of substantial coverage also shows it as not notable. noq (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Note also UsedEdgesII has been blocked as a sockpuppet. noq (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The altpress coverage is merely of announcements by the band - no significant coverage. noq (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment http://www.underthegunreview.net/2011/12/07/review-crown-the-empire-limitless/ Here's an Under the Gun Review then. You may may not like them but they've got a big enough following on Facebook (which is where most bands live now a days) and they've got enough reviews and press to justify keeping them. Besides 1/2 the news that exists now-a-days is 140 characters or less.Mariolennox (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Facebook and twitter are not news. And under the gun review does not seem to be a very widely respected blog, there is little on google about them other than social media sites. Wikipedia does not regard social media as reliable sources to establish notability. noq (talk) 00:51, 15 November 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:NOTINHERITED certainly applies as per consensus. A redirect may be valid, but target has not been sufficiently displayed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Williams, Baroness Williams of Elvel

Jane Williams, Baroness Williams of Elvel (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)

None notable person per WP:NOTINHERITED. Being the wife of a baron or the mother of a bishop does not make you notable. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. does not meet notability criteria.Pukkativa (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe (just maybe), but we are in danger of being sexist here and furthermore if you're a parent of the Archbishop of Canterbury (or of the president of the USA for that matter) I think it is rather different. Furthermore it is of interest to know that the parents of the Archbishop of Canterbury divorced when he was young, and this seems a ggod place to have the information.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Jane_Williams,_Baroness_Williams_of_Elvel&oldid=522182795" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.197.50 (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge a reconsideration of deletion to allow for possibility of more information or news about her emerging in the wake of the event of her son's appointment. It would be interesting to know for what county she is "DL" (Deputy Lieutenant) and alma mater if any.194.81.127.244 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such information would possibly be included in her son's article. However, as she herself is not a notable person there appears to be little need for wikipedia to contain detailed notes about her life.Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion seems premature in light of her son's recent appointment, and the likelihood of more information about her becoming available in the near future, although I would change my mind if she were, for example, a wikipedia editor with her own page. She seems an interesting woman in her own right, quite capable as shown by her work for Winston Churchill during an era in which women were discouraged from working, and her own mysterious DL status (whatever that is). Neither would be appropriate in Justin Welby's article, but would in her article. Plus as an American, I'm curious to learn how someone whose possibly aristocratic family included Conservative stalwarts ended up marrying a cricketeer turned financier whose allegiance is the Labour party.Jweaver28 (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, being interesting does not make a person notable. As you have probably found out form googling her, there isn't much information out there on her. Therefore she doesn't satisfy the goden rule of being "the subject of multiple published secondary sources". Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 10:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Lord Lieutenant is the Queen's representative in a county. They might open buildings or appear at parades. If the vice lord-lieutenant is unavailable as well as the Lord Lieutenant, Deputy Lieutenants (DL) fill in. As it is unlikely that both will be ill etc the appointment as DL is usually just an honour recognising your contribution/importance to that county. There are also a lot of DLs, maybe 30, so compared to being Lord Lieutenant its just a nice thing to have after your name. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 10:43, 11 November 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. Consensus is WP:NOTDIR and as per jurisprudence (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of StarHub TV and mio TV channels

List of StarHub TV and mio TV channels (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)

Current channel listing that clearly fails WP:NOTDIR, a constantly changing channel guide and directory similar to an electronic program guide. See overwhelming consensus for deleting channel lineups at other recent AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List_of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Too bad because it's nicely formatted. Unfortunately it belongs in an encyclopedia about as much as an article about String theory belongs in the TV Guide. Per WP:NOTDIR. - MrX 21:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand - We wanted to urge the expansion so that in case there will be more channels (Which is incomplete as a result), be it as a cross-carriage channels (StarHub TV > mio TV). It needs to either split it into StarHub TV and mio TV, or if not can put it together.
These should reopen Sky Digital channels since it might be very hard. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The expansion of one directory article into two directory articles does not address the concerns that Wikipedia is not a directory. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:24, 12 November 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, though not a particularly speedy one. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take It All

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

The article is pointless. There's only one article for something named Take It All, the game show. Bob Mono (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Talk:Take It All (game show)#Requested move. Bob Mono (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 and/or Todd Akin, or such other articles as may be created in the future. Users, by consensus, express that it is insufficient on its own to warrant an article and would be more appropriately covered in the context of Todd Akin and United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. MBisanz talk 01:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy

Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy (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)

Todd Akin said something stupid in August 2012. It did cost him support, and without this comment, it's possible that he would have won the United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. However, this comment doesn't deserve its own article, as the policy WP:NOTNEWS would indicate. Yes, the comment had its impact, but this is a WP:POV fork. It can be covered adequately at the Senate election article I linked above, and at other appropriate articles, such as War on Women.

A past AfD on this article closed as no consensus, but I believe that people couldn't parse out the WP:RECENTISM at the time, especially as the election was ongoing. For a similar incident that spawned an article and was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy. Note that Mourdock was also likely to win his election, and that his comment is likely the reason he lost. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This piece was no doubt created and blown up bigger than a Bullwinkle balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade due to the 2012 election campaign. In the wake of the Congressman's electoral defeat this remains a historically notable topic, it would seem, but perhaps on the short list for a paring down of size and intensity. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Outcome of the Mourdock article was delete and merge to Campaign Article. Casprings demanded an immediate Deletion review, which was unanimously closed with an endorsement of the Deletion. The place for a Campaign controversy is the campaign article. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the Missouri Senate election has a section for controversies or debates that influence the outcome of the Missouri Senate election; that is what it is for. If you believe that the Akin remarks were a major factor, that is an argument for the expansion of that section within that article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous209.6 doesn't get to define that the article is "for controversies or debates that influence the outcome of the Missouri Senate election. This had wider consequences then that. While I disagree with the Mourdock discussion, it should have little bearing here. Akin's comments clearly had much more WP:N then Mourdocks.Casprings (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
November 8, Casprings posted a link to the Mourdock, claiming relevance. The Mourdock discussion was definitively closed, and properly, and now it has "little bearing". Just a note on consistency.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Casprings, who wrote that 'oppose', is the article creator. Also note that the ongoing deletion review is endorsing the AfD result of delete. Also, we don't know it cost him his seat. McCaskill might've defeated him even if he hadn't opened his mouth about "legitimate rape". Further, it's "historically important enough" to mention at the Senate election article, but not enough for its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being the article creator doesn't discredit Casprings's opinion (he didn't explicitly vote keep, he's just opposing your nomination). The topic, and similar ones, received an immense amount of coverage, not as an element of the campaign but as an example of a stance on a controversial aspect of society. It also can be construed (and has been in the media) as the factor in his victory; its impact of drawing away establishment support is also noteworthy as an example and as a separate thing. dci | TALK 18:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Campaign point that is probably already faithfully characterized in the section on his page. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Akin is probably going to recede into obscurity; he isn't that good a candidate, which is why McCaskill campaigned for him so actively in the primary. The views allegedly expressed are at best fringe, and aren't really a campaign issue that will resonate or be picked up by anyone else. If it was important to the Senate campaign, it needs to be merged with the Senate campaign article; "in the news" arguments argue for inclusion in THAT article, not a separate spinout, something discouraged by WP. Now that he is out of office, it is unlikely that Akin will have people banging down his door. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly the views did resonate, because a number of other candidates also talked about rape and lost their races because of it. Wikipedia is about what can be verifiably confirmed by reliable sources, not what we personally wish were the case, and like it or not, this was an important part of the election. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no. Not a single candidate took up the "Rape" or "misunderstanding of Biology" banner and ran with it, since it worked so well for Akin. Not a one. On the other hand, the "number" of candidates is ONE. Let me repeat, ONE other candidate was ASKED about his views on rape exceptions for abortion, and had his "pro-life" response turned into a "pro-rape" comment by his opponent (misquoting the candidate). Not a trend to begin with, and therefore not an ongoing trend.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It sounds like you just are dissatisfied with the fact that these comments have an enduring impact; there's plenty of reliable sources that link Akin's comments with the Republicans' trouble with women voters and their senate and presidential losses. For instance: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/womens-issues-were-a-problem-for-gop.html?ref=politics ("Republicans, hoping to gain seats in the Senate, knew that their limited appeal among minorities would be a problem, as would party infighting. But they did not expect to be derailed by the definition of rape.") You may disagree, but that's not a reason to delete the article because we aren't reliable sources. AgnosticAphid talk 23:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; I am not saying it did not have an influence on the Senate campaign, it should be included there; that is a story of the campaign. Not saying it was not opportunistically folded into a larger Democrat 2012, defined by the political meme "War on women", and should be mentioned in that article on that campaign strategy. I am saying that, like Howard Dean's "Dean Scream" which was a pivotal moment, it did not have any integral or more widely applicable importance in and of itself, and therefore should not have a separate spinout. The story is that of the specific campaign and of the general campaign strategy. (The NYT article is really about the WoW strategy)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's notable enough to be discussed in both the 2012 senate campaign article and the War on Women article, then why isn't it appropriate to summarize it in those places and have a longer article here, per WP:SUMMARY? I mean, I guess there is WP:SPINOFF, but that says:
Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. This can happen when a particular controversial incident gets a lot of attention from editors representing different points of view, expanding until every item of evidence is included and referenced. This kind of detailed examination of a single incident in a general article will usually be considered to give Undue Weight to the incident so it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate section and just have a summary in the main article. AgnosticAphid talk 19:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summary style articles are those that treat HUGE subjects, and are in some way just replacements with narrative for a Table of Contents; instead of having a singular article on a huge subject go on for pages and pages, you have a short article (a Summary style) give short intros to ALL relevant aspects of the huge subject and then ALL aspects have major articles. None of the Articles concerning Akin or Democrat strategy are Summary style articles.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Mr Akin's article is already roughly one-fourth only about this article's subject. If we were to merge all of the information here into that article it would probably be closer to half. I think there is already too much discussion of this in Mr Akin's article -- he's been active in Missouri politics for over 20 years -- and that article actually is in summary style, it's just that the summary of this incident is way too long (in my opinion). Similarly, the War on Women article would be dominated by the information here if it were to be merged, even though there are lots of other elements to that topic as well. That's why the thing I referenced says that detailed examination of a single topic in a general article usually gives undue weight. AgnosticAphid talk 20:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat the obvious The Missouri Senate campaign article has exactly ONE spinout, namely this one. Spinouts are generally DIScouraged, the EXCEPTION being articles that are unavoidably huge, such that a short article containing summaries and multiple spinouts for EVERY (or almost) section is justified. The Missouri Senate campaign article is short, and is not this kind of "Summary style" WP article. Please read the rule section you are lifting; it explicitly tells editors to work on expanding main articles FIRST, and only if necessary, resorting to spinouts, and only in extreme cases, adopting "Summary style".--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to assume that it is a given that this is a spinoff of the Missouri Senate campaign article. The ramifications of his comments had national affect. These comments have been linked to comments by other republicans by multiple sources. As such, I think that a stand alone article on such comments during the 2012 election cycle is what is needed. Given the greater context, that is where the substance of this page belongs. Casprings (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both AA, who wants a spinout, and I, who does not, agree it is a spinout of the Senate campaign article (as do most editors by their arguments), mostly because it is. More to the point, arguments based on justification for spinouts based on "Summary style" exceptions have to address the issues with spinouts. Which this is.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from trying to characterize my thoughts. First of all, what about Todd Akin, which I mention above but which you don't? Second, if you'd read my contribution to the requested move discussion referenced at the top and on the article's talk page, you'd see that I actually agree with Casprings that this topic has consequences broader than just the Senate campaign. This is evidenced by the fact that it's mentioned in the War on Women article, in a prominent position. There are lots of other editors who have provided references to reliable sources that have discussed how this issue drew national attention to the presence of Republicans with extremely conservative abortion views. There are also articles about how that national attention had consequences. You really haven't explained exactly why you disagree, except to say, essentially, "They're wrong." I don't think that your views on the merits of reliable sources is a basis for deleting this article.AgnosticAphid talk 02:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MERGEWHAT? What information would you merge from this article that isn't already represented at Todd Akin? --BDD (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
actually a good point, but there is a good answer; now that the Article on the Senate campaign has a conclusion, I think there is much more room for post-mortems, and since there are election results, the influence of Akin's dumb campaign and gaffes can be expanded and not be WP:CRYSTAL anymore. Would support expansion there.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose this proposal and think we should keep the article. I don't think WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is on point. This article isn't really journalism or a news report or written as a primary source. It's not a who's who or a diary either. While perhaps the background and reaction portions of the article could be trimmed, this article is more of a secondary-source based analysis of the political implications of this particular event. I think that per WP:EFFECT this is an appropriate article because according to many reliable sources cited in the article it likely cost republicans this particular senate seat. Even leaving that to one side, there are a number of other sources that say that Mr Akin's comment is what cost republicans control of the entire senate. See, for instance, http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/republicans-blow-historic-opportunity-to-regain-senate-control.php (stating that "Republican odds of taking back the Senate collapsed and never recovered" after Mr Akin's comments). While it is true that there is some overlap between this article and others like the War on Women, the discussion of this topic in War on Women is exceedingly cursory and having a detailed article here seems to fit in with the outline or summary form that Wikipedia articles are supposed to take. I feel that instances of politicians making comments that have large and demonstrable political impacts per secondary sources are appropriate article subjects. While this information could be merged into the Todd Akin article, I think that this incident is already given undue weight in that article (he's been a politician for a long time, after all) and is better here. AgnosticAphid talk 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First, it was a factor in Akin's Senate race. All Senate races contributed to the balance of power, makes no sense to say THIS one was special because THIS race, as opposed to the ND race, "lost" something bigger. Second, TPM is not a WP:RS, so not an argument (and I would add that any time an attack blog is the first source someone uses, it reflects badly on the argument). Third, the place that is most appropriate for the material is in the Senate Campaign Article; and you make no mention. If you believe that this was a principal factor in the loss in Indiana, then WP:UNDUE argues that it should be weighted THERE accordingly. If you do NOT think it should be so weighted, then you don't believe the Akin comments are that important. One or the other.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand your first statement. If there had been a particular event that decisively contributed to the North Dakota senate race, I think that event would be worthy of an article too, if it were widely covered by reliable sources like this has been. As for TPM as a reliable source, I'm not an expert on what is and isn't a reliable source and I don't know very much about TPM. I don't think it's super persuasive to say "it reflects badly" on what I said without really responding to it just because I referenced TPM. As for the United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 article, I think that that article is actually a great example of a good use of summary style. (Other articles like Todd Akin devote too much space to this issue, in my opinion.) Having an article here is a good way to use summary style in all of the related articles without giving this topic undue weight in any of them. AgnosticAphid talk 21:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please READ the rule section you want to quote before you invoke it. United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 is not a "Summary style"" WP article, and the extraordinary exceptions referred to do not apply here.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Since multiple editors have suggested creating one article to handle all the rape comments during this election, I created a merge discussion. It can be found here.Casprings (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PROCEDURAL NOTE

  1. The alleged "Merge" discussions taking place elsewhere are not a renaming merge, but a "Delete and Merge", namely, stating that the standalone Todd Akin controversy cannot stand alone (ie should be Deleted), but that INSTEAD, there might be a case for a completely separate article with completely different scope.
  2. The merge target does not exist, and although any editor could have created such an article, and it would have almost certainly be quickly tagged with a Speedy Delete or AfD, the criteria for such deletions would have been based on the completely separate content of THOSE articles. This has been up for almost a week, no takers.
  3. THIS discussion is solely about an actual article, a standalone article on Todd Akin's controversial comments, and the only part of these separate discussions about a separate and different proposed article that are relevant to THIS discussion is the acknowledgement that a standalone article should not exist.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PROCEDURAL NOTE ON THE PROCEDURAL NOTE
  1. No it isn't, and the only one that is claiming that is you. The Todd Akin article does and can stand alone. I think this would be a means to improve it. However, it clearly is WP:N by it self.
  2. Says you. I doubt a speedy delete or an AfD would be successful.
  3. It was placed in this discussion because other editors suggest that it might be a good idea. Therefore it is relavent. Casprings (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone had held the belief or intent for TWO articles both being WP:N, one a standalone article on Todd Akin biology comments/controversy AND the second, "Republicans in general support x, 2012 "(presumably rape), there would have been no "Merge" proposal; a second article would simply have been started (any editor can do it, none have). No "Merge" discussion, no opportunity to post this AfD selectively. Inherent in the proposal is the supposedly desired outcome that the standalone Akin comment Article will no longer exist. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* Actually I think there is a strong argument for one article on all the comments and this page being an expanded page based on that article. That actually makes a lot of sense to me and may be how this evolves. Casprings (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My references do support my descriptions, and they do not argue against the continued existence of the article. The sources I cited say that "a massive backlash by female voters" caused two Republicans to lose seats they "should have won handily." They say "there is a tipping point, and Republicans who pushed it too far toppled their own careers" with candidates "around the nation" "sustain[ing] self-inflicted damage by clinging to their pro-life credentials, not realizing that the pro-life movement had pushed them to the edge of an abyss" and that "voters have shown they'll cross party lines to elect a good candidate and reject an extremist -- with women and the newest generation of voters leading the way." One article talks about how pro-life groups will change their tactics going forward. In another, the pro-life author describes herself as "troubled by the political conversations circulating today, where male politicians flippantly play fast and loose with real women’s health, real women’s lives, real babies." Another talks about the split in the Republican party itself, with some Republicans distancing themselves from Akin and others giving him "a flood of support." And the last link says this: "[The defeats of] Akin and Mourdock, both saddled by their refusal to allow women to choose abortion even in the case of rape, represent an historic and quite possibly permanent shift in religious values in U.S. politics. These extreme views will now cost a candidate an election, even in America’s heartland." The articles support that the Akin remarks were a significant cultural moment which exposed a split inside the American right, which (however it is resolved) will have important implications for the future of the Republican party. Again: significant controversy, international media attention, affected the outcome of the election, and will affect, going forward, the American debate over abortion and the place of social conservatism in the American right. Deserves its own article. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh.... did you ACTUALLY follow either election that you refer to????? Missouri (and Indiana, the other state referred to) are pretty solidly pro-life. In Missouri, Akin's bizarre comment on biology allowed McCaskill to skirt the general pro-life/abortion issue, which was not a winner for her. In the other race you cite, the ardently pro-life Democrat won over the ardently pro-life Republican. The split in Republicans over Akin was more a tactical one; shun him (majority view) or hold nose and fund anyway. There is a section in the Missouri Senate campaign article for funding, and the issue of the sharp divide in whether to support Akin financially in spite of his comments hurt his election chances.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous209.6, I'm not sure how what you've written is on-topic, or responsive to what I wrote. And I'd like to ask you not to start your comments with "uh" -- it's a bit rude. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that keeping a standalone spinout to provide access to wild partisan speculation is contrary to WP:ADVOCATE, and more importantly, your prognostications of the prognostications aren't really grounded in the realities of the race(s) being discussed nor exit polls of US voters; wishful thinking is not a justification, and Akin's bizarre biology comments did not change the pro-life support of either highly pro-life state. Certainly the confidence of those State's parties that ANY pro-life candidate, regardless of how inexperienced or confrontational, could win has been chastened, though had the Republicans nominated a grocery store aspidisra, they would have done better than Akin.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, there ARE topics too small for WP Articles, or we wouldn't have deletion discussions, or WP:N standards.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. The case for having a separate article here is stronger than it was in the Indiana Mourdock v. Donnely race, since the political fallout here was greater, for example while Mourdock retained central Republican support, Akin had his funding cut off and more or less disowned by the Republican leadership. Nevertheless, much of the article is a long list of reactions from media and politicians, much of which is news material and which could probably be culled without eliminating the main idea. In order to merge in a neat and elegant manner, the content will need to be shortened. If this is not feasible, the event is notable enough that a separate article can be justified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this has a stronger case than the Mourdock article. However, the long list of reactions from the media and other politicians is as you say excessive. Cutting that leaves us with a small enough amount of material that we can merge where appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than enough sources to justify this being its own article. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NOTNOTNEWS. If it was a case of the subject saying something, and it gets reported all over the news that he said it and then that was that, then I'll support against inclusion on the ground of NOTNEWS. However, the broader context of the words and the surrounding controversy affects more than the single senate election and for that matter more than the various elections that took place. So much analysis and debate has taken place and been reported on in reliable sources that it sends this over to have enduring notability. Whether or not to merge shall be left to the separate RM discussion that's taking place at the moment. -- KTC (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent article. Certainly newsworthy, but not notable enough for an article of its own. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to something like 2012 U.S. Republican comments about rape: this, combined with other similar remarks from other Republican politicians, turned into one of the major national political skirmishes of both the 2012 elections and the U.S. abortion debate. It also gained attention globally: from an outside non-U.S. perspective, the whole thing was quite jaw-dropping. It's certainly not a candidate for merging into a mere state-level politics article. -- The Anome (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, close early, and counsel the nominator against such misguided nominations. This controversy received tremendous attention and arguably decided the outcome of a Senate race. Everyking (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing that the Senate Race was more notable than most. No-one is advocating deletion of the Senate campaign article, or that the comments deserve to be mentioned there.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nomination doesn't refer to WP:DELETE particularly well. If we don't adher to the policies, what's going to be in Wikipedia is going to be arbitrary according to any temporary flock sentiment which is in eternal flux. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - By stating " and without this comment, it's possible that he would have won the United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012" the nominator basically made the case for lasting impact and as such WP:NOTNEWS is not applying. This is far from being run-of-the-mill news. --Cyclopiatalk 10:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, news about a Senate campaign that has and article and a place for the information.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge Agree with Kauffner, this belongs in the Akin article, and/or the election article associated with his race. aprock (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep. This was not just an event in the Senate race in one state; it was an event and subsequent controversy which gathered international attention. For example, it was more widely-covered in the British media than the whole of the rest of the Senate election across the USA. A standalone article allows this topic to be covered in a depth proportionate to the intense and protracted scrutiny which it received in the global news media.
    Some editors above suggest that it could be merged by eliminating a lot of the reportage of reactions to the remarks; but those reactions area critical part of the episode. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Massive and much-talked-about impact. Be as wary of reactionary anti-recentism as of recentism. A well-sourced, well-written article like this shouldn't be deleted so quickly out of fears that it might not end up withstanding the test of time unless there's very strong consensus to do so. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per nom. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 00:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge I second Rsrikanth05. --Kondi (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Elmer Clark, Sue Gardner, et al. This controversy started the whole ball rolling into a defeat for Akin and GOP -- ripped from the hands of victory. The Project needs this article. Without a detailed article, how will students, our core readership, understand in 2018 what happened six years before? Now, we know for certain, what effect this had, so recentism does not apply. If anything, this has become history. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all the "keep, it's an important election turner!" arguments don't suggest what is in this article that could not be adequately covered in United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri,_2012 (merge would also be okay). And, in any event, it is only one of 100 Senate seats. If this was part of a presidential race, maybe. But I see no reason not to apply NOTNEWS, despite the admitted gravity it had on this race. Kansan (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me that if it was merged, the resulting article would be very long indeed. Fact is, there's been so much coverage about this particular controversy that it would be inappropriate to try to address it solely within the scope of a broader article. Everyking (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and Bearian, Elmer Clark and Sue Gardner above. WP:NOTNEWS (which is actually WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) is meant for, as it clearly states, "breaking news" or "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." This controversy is certainly far past "breaking news" and nothing of a sort of routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. This was, and is, an ongoing series of discussion, analysis and controversy that even after the November 2012 elections is cited as one of the major factors in the elections outcomes that will be affecting government for years and a need for fundamental change in broad GOP appeal.[29][30][31][32][33] (These are just samples; there are many more.) It's even being discussed solely within the context of abortion after the election. [34]--Oakshade (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Up until the "need for fundamental change in broad GOP appeal" speculation, which violates WP:CRYSTAL and is highly unlikely, this is a "butterfly flaps its wings" argument, or this affected this in some way, which affected this which affected this, which FINALLY ends up being worthy of a WP article, therefore the butterfly flap also needs its own article. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, the controversy is far beyond the context of just the Missouri election but reported to have an effect on the entire election cycle, the shape of government for years and broad (or lack of) appeal to the Republican party.--Oakshade (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" Simply because it's possible to write a lot about a particular topic does not mean that it's appropriate for inclusion in a general-purpose encyclopedia." - Uh, why? It doesn't fit any of the reasons for merging listed in WP:MERGE. If it's possible to write a lot about a notable topic, then a separate article is normally in order. --Cyclopiatalk 20:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being able to write a lot about a particular topic is not only the fundamental tenet behind WP:NOTABILITY, but Wikipedia as a whole. The basic premise behind our notability guidelines is that independent significant coverage has been given to a particular topic, ie, being able to write a lot about that topic, is why we have articles. --Oakshade (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid that's simply wrong. Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia. It is not a specialized (political) encyclopedia. It is not a directory or a news site or a dictionary or many other things. Our notability guidelines make it clear that we should have an article about Todd Akin and other House members. They are public, political figures who are notable and worthy of coverage. Our notability guidelines absolutely do not suggest (or even hint) that it's appropriate to create spin-off articles like the one being discussed here, simply because it's possible to write a lot on the subject. Wikipedia as a whole has an issue with this concept. Editors often have this distorted notion that because something gets a lot of media coverage, it's somehow important or notable (and consequently worthy of inclusion here). When the reality of course is that the news media will report on nearly anything and we, as editors, must make sound judgments about what to include, what not to include, and in what form. In this case, the topic can be covered in a few paragraphs in a larger article. I don't believe anyone disagrees with including this particular information on Wikipedia, but there's no reason to have a separate article. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia. It is not a specialized (political) encyclopedia." - Nobody is saying it is a specialized encyclopedia.
  • "Our notability guidelines absolutely do not suggest (or even hint) that it's appropriate to create spin-off articles like the one being discussed here, simply because it's possible to write a lot on the subject." From WP:SPLIT: "If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is recommended that a split be carried out. In some cases refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia)." - This is exactly this case. By keeping a separate article, we can discuss the topic in full, following sources coverage, without putting undue weight sections in the main article.
  • "Editors often have this distorted notion that because something gets a lot of media coverage, it's somehow important or notable" - If editors often have this "distorted notion", then maybe this notion is consensus, or at least a reasonable notion, and not a "distortion".
  • " we, as editors, must make sound judgments about what to include, what not to include, and in what form." - We, as editors, must follow our sources and their coverage. We're not here to arbitrarely include or exclude topics on a subjective "judgement". We have guidelines that strive to be objective. And nothing in our notability or other guidelines excludes this article.--Cyclopiatalk 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Re: general-purpose, WP specifically is not EVERYTHING. I believe that is the point being made.
  2. Re: Spinouts discouraged. Yes, this IS a general principle. With regards to SPLIT, you seem to disregard the modifier "non-central" in your justification. If you believe that the Akin comments were "non-central" to his election, then you are arguing they did not matter to the election (hence no article). If you are arguing as you do elsewhere that they are "central" to his election, that is an argument AGAINST a spinout, and FOR expansion within the main article.
  3. Re: the last two, which are in fact one sentiment, completely contrary to WP's purpose, namely the notion that WP should simply reflect what appears in todays' papers, or attack blogs, similar to the variant, WP should reflect google hits. Judgement of what is Encyclopedic, which is very different from what sells newspapers is the very essence of WP. That editors often mistake google hits or news mentions for notability is a problem, WP should not follow problems. Following google hits would make WP a porn distributor, not an encyclopedia.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in fact it's not EVERYTHING. We have criteria to choose what to cover! And these criteria are under WP:N, and this topic meets them.
Second, "non-central" does not mean "insignificant". It mattered, a lot, and in fact it should also be mentioned in the main article: but it's best covered in full separately, per WP:UNDUE.
"Judgement of what is Encyclopedic [...] is the very essence of WP." -You are mistaken. "Encyclopedic" and "unencyclopedic" are circular fallacies. See WP:UNENCYC. --Cyclopiatalk 22:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, if you argue WP:UNDUE prohibits expansion of the section in the Senate Campaign article, you are arguing it was not important to the Senate race. You can't argue it isn't important enough to expand its mention where it belongs and simultaneously argue that it is critical to the race to get a standalone.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems you have a naive understanding of the concept of undue weight. The point of undue weight is not about mere "importance", is about general article content balance. Is this episode notable and important? Yes, it is, so the campaign article should mention it quite extensively. However it is so notable and has generated so much coverage that we have to split it to be able to cover it in full without dominating the campaign article. Just as we do for tons of other articles. We have a paragraph on the atmosphere of Jupiter in Jupiter#Atmosphere, but since it is such a vast and important topic, we also have a separate Atmosphere of Jupiter article -and it's separate exactly because it is important! The logic is the same here. --Cyclopiatalk 23:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WP:SPLIT, but you seem to be jumping to a different conclusion. That is, if you have a five-paragraph article about Todd Akin and three of the paragraphs discuss this incident, yes, it's disproportionate and should be fixed. That isn't a reason to create a separate article, though. You can either expand the Akin article to be better balanced or you can reduce the amount of information about this incident. The entire incident can surely be summed up in a few sentences. I'm not sure why more would be needed.
My point regarding a specialized encyclopedia is that in a political encyclopedia, it probably would make sense to have individual articles about incidents like this. In a general-purpose encyclopedia, there has to be some balance and editorial judgment. Is this incident really so important that it deserves a standalone article? No, I don't think so. Others here in this discussion seem to agree.
Regarding a distorted notion, editors may simply need a bit of education. :-)
And regarding following sources, yes, we are a tertiary source. We collect primary and secondary sources here and we re-report what they say. This is a defining point of WP:V. However, we absolutely do make editorial judgments about what to and what not to include. We do so with WP:BLP and many other policies and guidelines in mind. We are not attempting to be objective robots. The reason we have human editors is that they come with human judgment. Our editors are able to discern whether having a standalone article is justified or not. In this case, I believe it is not and I voted that way accordingly. Others disagree, though I'm still a bit lost as to why the Todd Akin or United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 articles are insufficient here. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The entire incident can surely be summed up in a few sentences. I'm not sure why more would be needed. - Read the article and you'll easily find why. There is a huge amount of significant coverage that has been made, and no reason to remove it altogether from our readers.
Is this incident really so important that it deserves a standalone article? No, I don't think so. - The point is that what we "think" is really irrelevant. I may personally think that this is not a really important incident, too. But my personal judgement on the topic is irrelevant: what counts, for us, is what the outside world decided to do. And the outside world seems to have deemed this topic hugely notable and deserving of coverage, and an article has been written on it by editors, and we have no objective reason to go against all of that.
And yes, we have to try to be "objective robots" as much as possible, that's the whole point of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BIAS etc. Unfortunately the task of building an encyclopedia is still not suited to automated algorithms, so it's up to humans to do that . Do humans put their subjectivity in building it? Yes, unavoidably. But it's a bug, not a feature. We should try as hard as we can to put away our personal biases. --Cyclopiatalk 20:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the media will certainly not "report on nearly anything". Secondly, if one is going to put so much emphasis on making "sound judgments about what to include, what not to include, and in what form", then it's important than one actually be good at it. The purpose of this AfD, in fact, is to make such a judgment. If people conclude that the tremendous attention given to this controversy demonstrates notability, then perhaps they are correct. Everyking (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course they do. :-) You've got a 24-hour news cycle on television and on the Internet these days. Plus there are various levels of media (local, regional, national, international) and a widening number of outlets (blogs, Twitter, print, other online sources, etc.). There's media coverage of nearly everything and anything and a lot of it (probably most of it) is redundant and unencyclopedic.
I'm not sure what you mean by "tremendous attention." It's been covered in the press and it deserves a mention here on Wikipedia. The question becomes whether it's so important and so notable that it deserves a standalone article. I haven't read anything from you or others that indicates that a standalone article is needed. The article itself has very little substance, all of which could easily be included in other articles such as Todd Akin or United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Define "needed". Because no article is "needed", per se. What has to be proven is if we need to remove it. Such a need has not been shown. About the media, again, we're not talking of news trivia like today's weather. We're talking of something that had exhaustive coverage and real effects on an election outcome. --Cyclopiatalk 19:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am so surprised to hear you say this, MZ, and I am surprised by everyone who talks about this as though it were just about Akin, or just about Missouri --- it's so totally not. I'm not going to repeat what I wrote up-thread, but really, this is a defining moment for social conservatives in the Republican party. Good bad or indifferent, the reaction to Akin's comments is indicative of social change. It's an indicator --not the only indicator, or even maybe the most important indicator, but an indicator nonetheless-- that American values are shifting, and that extreme social conservatism is being increasingly rejected. It's an important moment, and there's plenty of media coverage explaining why. Sue Gardner (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As with the up-thread comments, you are again making wild speculations and WP:CRYSTAL / WP:OR about what WILL happen and what overblown significance the defeat of an already gaffe-prone minor politician will have nationally. The pure wishful thinking that candidates in strongly pro-life states such as Missouri or Indiana will all suddenly now become pro-choice/abortion is a jaw-dropper, considering there was no change in the attitudes of voters in those States; the Democrat winner in IN was the type of conservative Dem that primaries often exclude (in IN, nobody wanted to run against Lugar), whereas the main story in Missouri was that too MANY good candidates wanted to run against McCaskill, and McCaskill actively threw money to skew the Republican primary to choose an opponent prone to mistakes. The argument in Republican circles is over the issue of Party discipline.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this article would NOT be a useful redirect, true, and all relevant Articles would direct to the Senate campaign or Akin articles, but would not object to creating a "legitimate rape" redirect once this is deleted.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally understand the logic, still you have no right to edit other users' comments without their permission. I didn't touch your comments, for example: I just asked you to remove them. I've striken my comments anyway, I guess it makes sense now. And yes, to politely ask to redact comments that go against WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL is in the business of every editor. --Cyclopiatalk 22:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find you more bureaucratic than pragmatic, somewhat judgmental, and also having a problem with free speech. When outsiders complain of awful Wikipedia bureaucracy, this is the kind of thing they're talking about. I don't believe I insulted anyone, and certainly not anyone in particular. Everyone can exhibit a bit of subjective misogyny and/or philogyny at times - they may have their reasons for it. It's not my business to judge these words as you did. --IO Device (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process exists for a reason -one can complain about bureaucracy, but it's the lesser evil, compared to chaos. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are necessary if you don't want to make this place a hideous clusterfuck. I have no problem with such comments in real life or elsewhere on the Internet, but they can't be tolerated here. And again, it is everybody's business to make sure this environment doesn't become toxic. That said, I'd say we can stop this discussion and move on. --Cyclopiatalk 23:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 01:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Chilaka

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

Article is not updated and has multiple issues It does not have even one External Links or Reference Greatuser (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article makes several verifiable claims of notability about its subject. Google turns up plenty of coverage in mainstream news sources. Lack of updates is not a valid criterion for deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To one of those wiki references? I'd say redirect to the animation company's article but it appears there is none, which I find odd. I don't see how the CEO merits a standalone article if all he's known for is being CEO of that one company. §FreeRangeFrog 21:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 8 November 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. Consensus for band notability is at WP:MUSIC, and consensus is that this one fails (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megabeat 1

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

Lacks notability per WP:MUSIC and WP:NALBUMS, and completely unreferenced. - MrX 03:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 26 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 10:27, 1 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:28, 8 November 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. Opinions here are more or less split with good faith arguments on both sides, and from reading our policies I see nothing that mandates either inclusion or deletion. Muboshgu did lay out his case in a good and comprehensive manner in the nomination statement, but Binksternet's arguments for keeping based on sources that made analyses on the phrase also carry weight. I looked into what our policies say, but policies can be interpreted in different ways by reasonable people. Some notes:

  • WP:NOT#NEWS says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.", and WP:EVENT says "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." The problem (if it's a problem) with this phrase is that it doesn't provide a bright line on when the coverage is considered "enduring". Some may think that it is "enduring" already since the Romney campaign picked up on the line throughout their campaign. Others think that "enduring" should be something that will be remembered and referred to years down the line. The policy does not really give any more guidance on how long it must endure (nor do I think we could expect the policy to do that). Determining whether there is a "lasting effect" at this point is also an educated guess at best.
  • The debate contains a "Note to closing administrator", a phrase I have seen a few times before. I ask that people refrain from using that phrase because everything in the debate is a note to the closing administrator, and adding it makes the note seem very important. It continues "Content from this article has been merged to the campaign articles. The edit history must be kept as required by WP:MAD. Therefore all Delete votes are invalid.". This note is (to use Politifact's term): Mostly False. It is correct that we usually do not close as "merge and delete" due to the attribution requirements, but we can work around it by moving the history to a different title, and we can also merge histories. We can also remove the merged content from the articles where it was added. A policy that allowed people to veto an outright deletion by performing a merge during the AFD discussion would be antithetical to a consensus model.
  • "They kept it once, you have to keep it now" is not policy either, since consensus can change (and consensus may arise where there was no consensus previously).

But although some of the reasons given for keeping are nonsensical, there is no majority, let alone consensus, for deletion and with no policy clearly mandating deletion I cannot call this a delete. Now, there is no majority, let alone a consensus for an outright keep either. Some people have suggested to merge the article with the one on the Mitt Romney campaign, but there isn't really any consensus for that either. The default for no consensus is that the article stays for the time being, and so that is the result here too. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't build that

You didn't build that (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)

Okay, here we go. In a nutshell, this should be deleted because of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, with any worthy content merged to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 and 2012 Republican National Convention. I will now detail why I believe this long and heavily sourced article does not belong on Wikipedia.

As many of us know, as part of the United States presidential election, 2012, Barack Obama gave a campaign speech in the swing state of Virginia in July. The reason this particular speech got an article is that in the speech, Obama made a comment about the need for government infrastructure as a prerequisite for the success of private business. The four word phrase "you didn't build that", which Obama uttered in his remarks, was then taken out of context by Republicans, including the Romney campaign, to suggest that Obama derides small business.

Now. we all know that political season is silly season. Republicans tried to make this phrase a theme to take Obama down. Democrats ridiculed Republicans, noting that what Obama said was right, especially as many of the businessmen who derided the comment had taken stimulus money, or had otherwise been supported by the federal government through other contracts. The Republicans used this phrase throughout their convention, even making it the central theme for a full day. This article was nominated for deletion in August, but as the phrase was widely used at the time, and we didn't know about its long term impact, and the article was kept.

Then, everyone seemed to realize that this political attack had no legs. Using the phrase gave no advantage to Republicans in polls. By September, you stopped hearing Republicans referring to this speech entirely. The campaign moved on to the next items of business. You can see from this article that there is a lot of content in terms of the immediate reactions, but then nothing about this for the last few months. That's because there was nothing else happening with this allegedly notable subject. I haven't seen a single political pundit even mention this speech in the wake of Romney's defeat on Tuesday.

Clearly, this argument had no bearing on the results of the election, seriously questioning any notability it had. Some of Obama's speeches are notable (see Category:Speeches by Barack Obama), but this was one of many campaign speeches that only gained notice for four words, which are now mostly forgotten. The article was created, expanded, and kept in August at AfD due to recentism. However, it is merely a political attack, which is a dime a dozen in this world, and not deserving of its own article. Now that the election is over, and Obama has won, with no talk about who built what for months, I hope we can close the door on this travesty of an article. Again, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and any POV-related guidelines you can find apply to this article. Any relevant content can be retained in the appropriate campaign articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of rebuttal points directed specifically at the above. First, the issue of what Obama MEANT to say, or the full context of the speech is not relevant. He did denigrate the contribution of individual effort to the success of businesses, it just wasn't the principal point he was trying to make. Politicians do not extract from other politicians' speeches to make their opponent look good. While they could have used "well, there are lots of smart people", or some other such, but "you didn't build it" best illustrated the preexisting criticism of Obama. Yes, it is the only thing people remember from that speech, but that is just an argument that the speech itself was not notable, not that the phrase isn't. The back and forth over whether the antipathy to business (the underlying theme) or the phrase itself was appropriate is in fact an argument for notablility, not lack thereof. The question of how effective it was is a valid one to bring up over any political theme, but I would dispute that it was not a principal theme of the campaign. Further, unlike attacks on Romney, which will dissipate now that he isn't in power and isn't running, substantive criticism of the attitudes of the President have legs for at least four more years. With regard to the tone of the Romney campaign in the last month, there was a general abandonment of attacks on Obama, a strategy of consolidating gains and playing it safe, and thus looking more Presidential, that has been much criticized; your explanation of why is WP:OR, and not generally supported. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a narrative discussion of the event itself falls cleanly within WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I don't see lasting impact demonstrating notability under WP:EVENTS. I haven't seen any reliable sources opining that the "you didn't build it" speech is going to have any sort of lasting impact on Obama's presidency. That's just what you think which doesn't belong here. If reliable sources did so opine, and this article was focused on those comments, it would deserve to stay. AgnosticAphid talk 21:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhh.... this isn't an article about an obscure speech, but about the political meme that came out of it; no longer an event.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It's not that simple. It's an article about a campaign theme that is solely based on Obama's remarks at a particular event. The article is overwhelmingly focused on the particular comments Obama made and how they were interpreted by whom. It's not really so much about "here's all the different ways that Romney used 'you can't build it' in his campaign." It's a lot more "here's what the president said and here's what everyone thought about it." To me, that makes it seem like the article is about the event more than about a meme or campaign theme. AgnosticAphid talk 18:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even if it is a meme, does that actually make it notable? I feel like "Romnesia" definitely wouldn't be an appropriate article, but I'm not exactly sure why or how it could be inappropriate while this article (insofar as it's about a campaign theme) is. AgnosticAphid talk 19:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not lost after being gained; it merely turns into historical notability. The term was "parsed" by the Chicago Tribune and commented on by many other very highly placed reliable sources. It does not go away after the election. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point isn't that notability was "lost", it's that it was never notable in the first place, as covered by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(events), I see no "significant lasting effect", and this isn't being "re-analyzed afterwards".– Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOTNEWS doesn't help us here. It is about routine news items such as putting up the annual Xmas tree in front of City Hall. It has no bearing on a political term that was widely discussed for weeks across the nation, spilling over into the UK media.
      • Wikipedia:Notability (events) doesn't help us here because it deals with events. The "You didn't build that" phrase is not an event.
      • Wikipedia:Recentism is an essay, not policy. It is ambivalent about deletion, supplying reasons for deletion and also reasons for keeping. An article that was initially developed by fast-unfolding news reports is later re-edited to emphasize a longer view for historical value. I consider this article to be of historical value.
      • Finally, WP:GNG takes care of whether this article should be kept or deleted. The topic very firmly answers the requirements shown: significant and reliable coverage independent of the source. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that WP:EVENTS is on point because this article is about the event of Barack Obama saying what he did. It's not about the phrase "you didn't build that" as a novel turn of phrase or lexical oddity or anything like that. If there was a showing that this event had a lasting political impact, I think this article would be appropriate. I can't say I see that at the moment but I've not been very involved here. AgnosticAphid talk 19:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand how you come away with the impression that the Article is about a speech on a single day. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still think its premature to delete on the grounds of the nomination. It was one of the "moments that defined the campaign"[36]. Ultimately dumb talking points like this likely cost Romney the election. By all means this should be covered in shorter form in the campaign history articles, but I don't see the problem with an article dedicated to this event. Its quite more significant than silliness like the Dean Scream.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing parallels to Dean Scream, it should be merged like Dean Scream has been. What do you think people will say when they look back at this article in 10 years time? Probably something similar to what you have said about Dean Scream. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But it doesn't hurt to have a separate article dissecting this campaign event, in my view. Binders full of women, that's more like the Dean Scream.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsuccessful campaign strategy and agree with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Maybe the real issue here is candidates focusing on the little things like this or "legitimate rape" instead of the major issues at hand, but that's probably best left to a different thread. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't build it is ALL about substantial anti-business policies.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with that is that You didn't build it and War on Women were both used by multiple campaigns. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to accuse another editor and an admin of edit warring, please have the courtesy to notify them so they are able to defend themselves. I feel I already know why you didn't report this "edit warring" at ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Way to find a flimsy excuse to WP:CANVAS some delete votes. [44][45] CallawayRox (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You would know Scjessey gave a half-assed excuse if you bothered to read the last AFD. I'm not going to waste my time again. Also the reverts happened during August-September when I took a break from political articles. CallawayRox (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of this bullshit. It was obvious you stuck the link in there to help promote the article's existence and try to inflate the importance of the event. And at the time, the article reflected a non-notable speech instead of the very-slightly-more-notable faux meme created by the Romney campaign after the fact. And IRWolfie is absolutely right about informing me, especially since bringing up such matters in AfD is totally inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice WP:AGF failure. {{main}} is right there in Wikipedia:SS#Basic_technique. CallawayRox (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've known you too long to waste time assuming good faith with you. And there's nowhere near enough material to make summary style an issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of 4 months since the last AFD?? You're the notorious POV warrior who was topic banned, admonished and restricted by Arbcom for edit-warring on Obama articles. Your WP:GAME is obvious. Step 1: Delete content from Obama campaign article. Step 2: Claim "there's nowhere near enough material to make summary style an issue." CallawayRox (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge any relative material to the appropriate campaign article. This should have been deleted and merged the first time, but it should be glaringly obvious by now that this is not a notable event and was just a partisan attack based on a simple mis-speak while giving a speech. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The appropriate comparison is with War on Women, as each were overarching themes of their respective campaigns, both were rolled out when convenient, rolled back when not; the only difference is that while the theme of Obama's antipathy to business and free enterprise was long-standing, the catch phrase turned up late, whereas the Democrat's campaign meme came out early, and events or criticisms were fitted INTO the meme later. Neither was just a blip in the history of their respective campaigns, unlike the short-term gaffes whose articles have been deleted (or should be). Further, while neither was coined to enlighten and expand the debate, each has substantive issues which it refers to. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge anything useful into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, where it should've been in the first place. The Wikipedia community needs to have a serious discussion about what to do in the case of exploitative, agenda-driven articles such as this one. Whenever there is an election of some sort, garbage like this is created by partisans intent on using Wikipedia to push their agenda, and it needs to stop. The existence of other just-as-crappy articles is no excuse. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the spamming of WP with every talking point or gaffe is detrimental, and there needs to be a discussion; Political Articles are very often terrible. On the other hand, at SOME point, Political Memes DO become notable; question is when, and I would tend to argue that if a major party COMMITS to one, such as devoting their Conventions to them, that makes the grade. (both Your didn't build it and War on Women make it, the rest mostly don't)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "at SOME point, Political Memes DO become notable" - they might become notable. But they might not and we should not be one of the conduits through which "notability" is established. In addition, important political memes might well (and fequently probably should) be appropriately covered within a larger parent article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As was said pretty clearly, the Scj seemed to be making a general comment about political memes, and the comment in response was that while spamming had been a problem, THIS meme met the hurdle, and why. WP:CRYSTAL is utterly unrelated; it is already WP:N, MAY become moreso, but does not need to.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has become a lasting meme. The subject is not inherently POV and indeed has been the subject of serious commentary beyond the question of how the Romney campaign used it. Note, for example, this Los Angeles Times column about common themes behind "you didn't built that" and Hilary Clinton's "it takes a village" [46] and this Washington Post piece about polls indicating that a majority of Americans may have ended up agreeing with Obama's point.[47] This is well worth keeping. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The nominator is entirely correct about many points, especially that this is clearly non-notable as it had no lasting impact and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which applies to more than its few examples given there. While it was a major topic at the RNC, notability is not inherited from the RNC/Romney campaign/the election as a whole, and therefore the article was never notable and WP:NTEMP does not apply. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Doesn't seem reasonable that we should have separate Wikipedia articles for every controversial thing that is said during elections.Keihatsu (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the subject of this AfD is not GENERALLY if Political memes make good articles; most do not, and most should be deleted ASAP (possible usually means once the campaigns stop and the partisan spammers let up). The question is, since memes are SOMETIMES worthy of note, does THIS Article meet those criteria. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the question that needs to be asked is this: Did this matter turn out, as expected, to be nothing more than a Romney campaign tactic based on taking Obama's words out of context? The answer is yes, since outside of the Romney campaign it lacks notability; therefore, it belongs in the Romney campaign article and it does not deserve its own article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was noticed by Brits and discussed in the Guardian. It was discussed very widely in US media, and parsed by the Chicago Tribune. It meets WP:GNG handily. Merging to the Romney campaign is not indicated nor necessary. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm British. The Guardian only "noticed" it in the context of it being a Romney campaign tactic, not a thing in itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was uncertain at first, but it's simply too notable. It is even still discussed after the election, so it's not just a blip in the news, and there is indeed a significant lasting effect -nullifying NOTNEWS and recentism concerns. Other deletion rationales don't look like covered by policy. --Cyclopiatalk 14:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that that particular article really supports the proposition that this event has a lasting effect. It notes that the media took a long time to cover this, states republicans focused on it a lot in their convention, and then says "In the end, instead of turning on Obama, some voters reacted to the remarks by saying the words in context made them feel more positive about the president." In my opinion, that's not a lasting effect. AgnosticAphid talk 17:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a post-election commentary showing that it was a focus of the republican campaign and that it backfired influencing the result of a US presidential election is not "lasting effect", I don't know what it is. However YMMV. --Cyclopiatalk 17:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being a focus of the campaign itself isn't 'really' a lasting effect, is it? This sort of argument would expand the scope of Wikipedia to include every campaign theme of every arguably important election. I do agree with your second point -- we have an article about Willie Horton, after all -- but I haven't seen any reliable sources that say that this affected anything one way or the other (your source just says "some voters" "fe[lt] more positive about" Obama). As you said, everyone's mileage might vary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnosticaphid (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was just too much coverage in reliable sources to deny notability. As others have noted, notability is not temporary. The article is fairly good shape and has been stable for some time. There's especially no reason to delete now that the elections are over and there are no BLP issues. FurrySings (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, although this article has had issues AFD is about whether a subject is notable or not. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG and its notability is far greater than that normally prescribed to WP:NOTNEWS as the coverage of the subject went far beyond the standard X went to Y, or the weather is Z at A on day B.
Now as for this being an event, it appears that since my last visit to the article (which I said I would not longer edit) it stopped being about an event and its effect but about a meme. As a meme, and its origin, the article has a significant about of reliable sources to indicate that the subject received more than routine coverage, and that it is clearly notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see this as a meme at all, despite what the page said when I nominated it. It's a phrase that got some play until it didn't. I don't see the impact on culture that a notable meme would have. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not want the page to devolve into an article about a meme either, but I said I would steer clear of editing it, and I have kept to my word. The article was originally about an event, as an event it received significant coverage from multiple independent sources, and clearly passed the WP:EFFECT criteria. A significant reason why in the original failed AfD of this article was arguements revolved around such things as WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:CFORK. Now there was clear consensus there that it was not either, and was notable. Now, is it related to other notable subjects? Yes. Is it independently notable as well? Yes. Can it be summarized, merged, and redirected? Yes. Do I see that as the best solution? No.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notable once is notable forever, except this was never encyclopedically notable, it was just news; its notability came from the election and the article was made out of recentism. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article was "made out of recentism"? What does that even mean? Just because something is recent doesn't mean it isn't notable. What constitutes your definition of "encyclopedic notability", and how much of the encyclopedia are we going to have to delete to accommodate it? Everyking (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is yet another invalid argument for deletion discussions, and "how much of the encyclopedia are we going to have to delete" basically falls under its scope. Not to mention that I am not trying to own the encyclopedia, as you seem to think, but rather improve it. You should know that I do not like being accused of such things as attempted owning. Meanwhile, encyclopedic notability refers to the general notability guideline, as long as the subject is not an example of what Wikipedia is not. This is something that Wikipedia is not. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete The notability of this topic (despite all protestations) is nil. Reviewing the relevant guideline, WP:EVENT, the third bullet: "Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event." and the fourth bullet "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." apply here. Looking at the sources in the article, none of them satisfy WP:PERSISTENCE, and none of them satisfy WP:INDEPTH. This is precisely the "water cooler" type event that does not merit it's own article. Including the content in the relevant campaign article is what makes sense here. aprock (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Do we have to create an article every time a politician says something stupid?!? (or something the opposing party says is stupid). Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy just got deleted and Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy is nominated for deletion. The argument that it's meme status makes it newsworthy is ridiculous. Today's meme-happy culture will make literally anything a meme; that no one will even remember in a year. Put the comments on the politicians' pages, but don't create new articles. #dangerousprecedent Light-jet pilot (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'"Do we have to create an article every time a politician says something stupid?"' - Nope. Only when it's deemed notable by reliable sources, like in this case. --Cyclopiatalk 17:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Partialy correct -- It was deemed notable in the context of the 2012 campaign. Not for a stand-alone article. Light-jet pilot (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is based on a single news event, and is not notable as a whole to be an encyclopedia article. Keeping the article is subscribing to WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is not a news site, nor does it function as a repository or forum for WP:NEWSEVENTs. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this is about an event, not a meme, for the reasons I mentioned above – it's mostly narrative and not as much about, for instance, all the different ways this comment was used in the campaign or how there was some popular you-didn't-build-that tumblr or something. I don't think this is an event with a lasting impact per WP:EVENTS. Insofar as this actually is about a campaign strategy/theme or meme, it seems to belong more in the 2012 presidential election article than it warrants its own article here. I don't think that Wikipedia should have separate articles on all the different campaign themes of US elections unless the themes are particularly notable or influential, which I don't think this is. AgnosticAphid talk 20:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not significant enough for its own article; very likely not significant for a mention in most possible target articles. Notnews, not significant, not encyclopedic. Might be worth a teensy mention in the election article, but not in my opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Per nomination, Wikipedia is not news and is not a newspaper. Subject is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Fails WP:Event as well as there is no claim or evidence to lasting significance. Holyfield1998 (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)— Holyfield1998 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: (to answer them in one place) I'd like to notice that the !votes above by M0rphzone, AgnosticAphid, KillerChihuahua and Holyfield1998 are not based in any real policy or guideline, despite their linking of WP:NOTNEWS and the like. NOTNEWS makes sense in the context of very routine news coverage, but the fallout of this remark went well beyond that. It is still being cited. It Also, arguments like "not encyclopedic" are known to be fallacious. --Cyclopiatalk 16:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well, wp:events is a notability guideline, and wp:notnewspaper is a policy. I explained why I think this article doesn't meet those two. You may disagree, but you haven't really explained why except for "it's kind of a big deal." That article you linked is really not about "you didn't build that," it's just mentioned in passing. The marginal nature of the references you keep providing leads me to think there really aren't any post-election articles or studies about this supposed "meme" qua meme which IMO is what it would need to stay.AgnosticAphid talk 16:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't really "explain", you just stated stuff like "I don't think this is an event with a lasting impact" -not much of an explanation. The references mention it in passing, but mentioning is all what is needed to see that the episode lasted beyond the initial burst of news. The point is not that I disagree with the policies -it's that you (plural) are quoting them without explaining objectively and/or convincingly why and how would they apply, apart from circular reasonings "I don't think it's notable, therefore it isn't". --Cyclopiatalk 16:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my reasoning would be clear to those who read the guideline, but I guess I was mistaken. wp:events says that events are notable if they have lasting historical significance or a significant or lasting effect. There doesn't seem to be evidence of that. WP:events also says that events are notable if they have "widespread impact" "especially if also re-analyzed afterward." Although its only an essay, I also liked the "criteria" part of Wikipedia:News articles. This article is not a critical analysis of either Obama's remarks or their subsequent use. I just don't think there really is much such analysis out there.AgnosticAphid talk 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTNEWS is not really used as a meaningful policy argument—hardly anyone who cites it ever uses it correctly. Normally, it is used to avoid the bother of constructing a coherent argument. Everyking (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This topic (I mean, the speech) did not solely affect either campaign. Romney lost by electoral votes, but lost to Obama by just ONE PERCENT popular vote. Shows that this speech has nothing to do with the election and its results. --George Ho (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not an expert on either deletion discussions or the technical aspects of merging, but my read of the essay you linked is that even if this article is deleted if the (deleted) article had a redirect to the campaign article(s) then the edit history would be preserved. AgnosticAphid talk 21:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes GNG, plus WP:NTEMP. Instaurare (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, but rename. Having stood on the floor of the Republican National Convention while they played video after video about this comment (I missed the song about it unfortunately), I can't see how the fact that it was blown way out of proportion makes it somehow non-notable. Yes, this was made notable by a partisan media machine, but that doesn't somehow erase the fact that it was made notable. My one objection is the name: It's a violation of WP:POVTITLE as the quote, in and of itself, has a partisan connotation. Let's change it to something like "'You didn't build that' remark meaning controversy," "Barack Obama 'You didn't build that' remark meaning controversy" or even "Dispute over Barack Obama's usage of the phrase 'You didn't build that'" or something really clunky with that - the tendency with political topics is to choose long, boring names over more accessible, familiar ones. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And for one simple reason. I am writing an article. I need a nutshell analysis of "you didn't build that" to explain a quotation in the article that doesn't make a lot of sense without this context. So I searched, and found this article. It will work perfectly to explain with a simple link-in, as Wikipedia articles so often do. Why delete something that is so useful? Richard Myers (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:ITSUSEFUL, that's an argument to avoid here by itself. Perhaps if you explained what you're writing about it might be easier for us to figure out why it's so useful?AgnosticAphid talk 07:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a bit different because you can say the Jack Kennedy comment had a lasting impact since people have been talking about it for 25 years. Plus, there wouldn't have been a wikipedia article so soon after the event given the date. Maybe that just means this AfD is premature. It is true that in neither case did the event apparently have a decisive political impact, and it does seem like nobody has questioned the notability of that event. AgnosticAphid talk 07:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Same article, new name. They kept it once, you have to keep it now. We know that this became popular because of its different usages (meme, attack ad, video that feature it just for fun). It's one of the campaign remarks that makes it want to be kept in the museum (WP), not deleted from the cyberspace. PitsConferGuests 11:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. As with similar US political memes, the fact that something got a lot of media coverage means that it may have an article, not that it must. Covering political campaigns at this minute level of detail is the job of newspapers, not (per WP:NOTNEWS) the job of an encyclopedia. Appropriately condensed coverage in the articles about the election, the campaign or the candidate suffices entirely.  Sandstein  18:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fetcham. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 01:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcham

Fletcham (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)

Typo for Fetcham Adam37 (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 November 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 Withdrawn. (Non-admin technical closure).Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hakeem, Pakistan

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

Not notable as a city. Previous revision can show what exactly was the content that was supposedly making it notable. If it is to be retained, must include relevant and appropriate details or else the article should better be deleted until notablity is established TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the consensus of the community is clear on this issue. I therefore withdraw my nomination. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Withdrawn due to consensus and article improvement. (non-admin closure) — Dengero (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn McCafferty

Dawn McCafferty (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)

Is every one-star commander worth an article of itself? Nothing else notable about this particular individual I can see. Dengero (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I would agree that not every one-star is worth a page, however there are plenty of people here on Wikipedia who have done sod-all for the world at large. However this lady/Commodore is incharge of the newest generation of cadets, but more than that established the Families Federation of the RAF. To say the least this lady is active.
I would say it would be a shame when we have so many mundane people stored in the vaults that we would consider somebody as active as this.
Anyway, I have expanded the article with more info and background stuff, an extra reference and gave it a bit better layout.
Kindest regards,
(MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 8 November 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. Wifione Message 13:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CS Networks

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

non-notable company, no verifiable references akaDruid (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 2 November 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of ornithological societies. Wifione Message 13:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of bird conservation groups and websites

List of bird conservation groups and websites (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)

Unreferenced WP:NOTDIRECTORY, fails WP:List Del♉sion23 (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 2 November 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:15, 8 November 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. Wifione Message 13:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Gran Aventura de Alejandro

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

The only coverage I can find of this book is the reference cited. This is a good reference that includes critical commentary, but if there is only one source available I don't think it is enough to prove notability. Specifically, WP:NBOOK says that books must be covered in "multiple, non-trivial published works" (my emphasis). — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 01:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These types of nationalistic travel/instruction books have a long tradition going back to Le Tour de la France par deux enfants (France) and The Wonderful Adventures of Nils (Sweden). These two examples were originally written as school text books, but proved so popular they are often read as literature and today considered children's classics (in those countries). La Gran Aventura de Alejandro is of the same genre, but unclear if it has crossed the threshold to literature or classic. There are two tepid customer reviews on Amazon and no mention in any literary dictionaries or encyclopedias. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since it's a textbook, it can't fall under the classroom part of WP:NBOOK and I can't find anything to suggest that this is a notable textbook otherwise. Nothing comes up on JSTOR or on a google search.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:45, 4 November 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NBOOK. The book has not been the subject of multiple published works, nor has it won a major award or been the basis for a notable adaptation, nor is the author a major historical figure. The book is taught in schools, but as a foreign language textbook, so it does not satisfy NBOOK 4. Barring some "ignore all rules" argument about notability beyond these guidelines, which no one appears to be prepared to make, it can't be deemed notable. Cnilep (talk) 02:49, 11 November 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 List of sole survivors of airline accidents or incidents. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ashton Vick

Paul Ashton Vick (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)

Doesn't seem to be notable for anything other than surviving a crash as a baby - WP:BLP1E seems to apply. Dweller (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 8 November 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. Wifione Message 13:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on Fuel TV: Munoz vs. Weidman

UFC on Fuel TV: Munoz vs. Weidman (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 on this event has already been deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV 4 (2nd nomination), the event still fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no indication that the event has had any enduring notability. The coverage, now as then is limited to the routine type of event announcements and results. Mtking (edits) 11:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per reasons given in the UFC 155, UFC Fight Night,UFC on FX Sotiropolis vs. Pearson. The articles have credible sources included from MMAJunkie (owned by USA today), Sherdog, TSN, Sportsnet, Globo, ESPN. These articles are written objectivley, have sources, and have viewership to support notability. Nominating more UFC pages for deletions and echoing the same response as before, even events with smaller notability are still acceptable under the Wiki notability events page, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event." Even if these failed to meet the requirements, other actions should be met. Instead of deleting, Mtking (if he/she really wanted to follow wikipedia guidelines) could merge all the FX, Fuel, Fox cards into three annual omnibus; but it seems that Mtking is not willing to undertake this measure and would rather just delete all the MMA articles. Shame. Autokid15 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Annual omnibus article ? what a good idea, would be in keeping with WP's goal of summarising available reliable sources, perhaps we could call them 2012 in UFC events, UFC on Fuel TV events in 2012 and UFC on Fox events in 2012. Oh hang on, it looks like they have been deleted because MMA fans did not like them (see here, and here). As for the text you quoted the relevant bit is "especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" it is that later analysis that does not happen for MMA events. Your observation about sources also overlooks the point that the same is true for all professional sports, go look for sources on any of this weekends NFL games, you will come up with thousands of sources on each one, look for last weekends and you will have tens of thousands of sources on each of those, covering the results, significant plays, details of player performance and injuries yet none of them, like this and other UFC events are suitable candidates for an encyclopedia article. Before you retort with the international angle, you will find European and Aussie sources there as well as US ones. Also before you say that MMA is not NFL and should be treated differently, the question is why, where are the scholarly works that set out why an MMA event is so different to all other sports event, an encyclopedia should treat it differently ? Is it not professional sports persons competing with each other paid for by fans either paying to watch at the event or on TV ? Mtking (edits) 03:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. The article contains well sourced prose concerning historically notable fight results. --Keep UFC Articles (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Blocked sock[reply]

  • Keep Numerous UFC events just like this one were kept. There is no reason to think that this is any different. MTking comparison of UFC events to single football games is totally misplaced and shows that he has no knowledge about the sport. If we are to compare different sports, one football game would compare to one UFC fight. An UFC event usually has around 12 fights. While no one is thinking about creating an article for one UFC fight, an article for one UFC event is feasibly. Evenfiel (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if an article is written to go with the tables. A lot of these MMA AfDs are bullshit, but in cases like this, I can see the point about a lack of sourced prose. Some pretty significant performances for Carmont and Weidman here, and readers might like to know how the fights actually went. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. AfD is not the correct venue for merge and redirect proposals (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of TurboGrafx-16 games

List of TurboGrafx-16 games (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)

Better idea: instead of having separate articles for PCE and TG16 but a single article for CD in both regions, let's just have one article for each platform. All the info from this article is on the PCE one anyway. Despatche (talk) 09:43, 8 November 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) 14:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Deletion isn't even being requested (which is good, it shouldn't be.) The correct avenue would be to start up a Merge/Redirect discussion on the respective talk pages. (And/or just being bold and doing it if the pages are inactive and no one seems to oppose or work on either article.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 8 November 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. Wifione Message 12:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ansel Faraj

Ansel Faraj (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:CREATIVE (and even WP:GNG). Mr T(Talk?) 07:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails all notability guidelines. No substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. None of the sources used are even close to being reliable, and my own Google searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Agree that this a promotional article of zero encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Speedy keep: possible bad-faith nomination by now indef-blocked sockmaster, and SNOW keep anyway. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Lewis (choreographer)

Terence Lewis (choreographer) (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)

Does not meet Basic notability guideline for biographies and is not written from neutral point of view Sriharsh1234 06:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 November 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. If someone wishes to merge it with any other article, please take it up on this article's talk page. Wifione Message 12:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended periodic table (large version)

Extended periodic table (large version) (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)

All the encyclopedic material is already covered at Extended periodic table. Although we should keep the larger extended periodic table template, it doesn't need its own article to host it. HGK745 (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We also have articles like periodic table (large version). These articles have to be taken into consideration when AfDing only one of a number of similar articles. Just throwing this out there. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALLORNOTHING, and besides I would support deletion of those articles as well for the same reasons. --HGK745 (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although we should keep the larger extended periodic table template, it doesn't need its own article to host it - An unused (untransposed) template is up for deletion for that reason alone. There is no argument to keep it then. As you are sort of admitting now in this post. -DePiep (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to the reason above. if I find something that makes it worthy of deletion, I'll change my response ~ihaveamac [talk|contribs] 04:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: Whether or not the large tables should be merged into the regular article, Wikipedia:Article size gives guidelines about that. I see no absolute solution, both current split and possible merge are compromises. -DePiep (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because this contains no information that isn't already in the several other periodic table articles. The table adds a lot of non-existent/undiscovered elements to Periodic table (large version), but it doesn't contribute any non-duplicate information about any elements that exist or have been studied. All it adds is a list of numebrs and systematic names that anyone could calculate. What is the value of this page, or more specifically of its bottom two rows? People who argue "if we delete this we should delete periodic table" are missing the point: a more accurate comparison would be if I created an article "Extended table of Presidents of the USA" with all the current presidents of the USA and then added to the bottom "50th president", "51st president", "52nd president", ..., would that really be a useful addition to Wikipedia? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • already in the several other periodic table articles: that is the point of the page: it brings together information, uniquely even. numbers and systematic names anyone could calculate - Can I calculate the Pyykkö variant? Can I build a table extension Glenn T. Seaborg got the Nobel Prize for? -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Those bottom two rows are cited to reliable sources (e.g. Pyykkö) which calculated the positions of these elements (confirming Fricke's earlier calculations, BTW), and this calculation is even quoted in Haire (used as a textbook, IIRC). I don't think any reliable sources has (or could have) calculated future Presidents of the United States, OTOH. Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per StringTheory11, DePiep, Ihaveamac and Thincat. Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, how would the merge look like? I tried Talk:Extended periodic table/sandbox, but is that a good page? The large form on a page is really, eh, large. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Keep since this encyclopedia should have the extended periodic table in full forms, both in Aufbau and Pyykkö (as the AfD page has). Repeat: WP should have all of it. It is a layout (tablesize) issue. Now if it can be merged convincingly (see WP:PAGESIZE), they could be merged. An example I made at Talk:Extended periodic table/sandbox. Layout tricks used: {{wide template}}, legend outside (=stable in page); not: fold. The layout should always result in a useful page. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 8 November 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 procedural close. Speedily deleted (A7) by TexasAndroid. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Gmind institute

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

Non-notable training institute: language courses, "call centre courses", etc. No sources. Hairhorn (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 01:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Bottoms, Oakland, California

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

The only source for this being called "lower bottoms" is the first link. the rest of the refs do not support notability at all. I believe the area is known as Oakland Point, Oakland, California [58] Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now. Lower Bottoms is the colloquial name for the neighborhood by those who live there. It's also listed as the neighborhood name on Google Maps, fwiw. Not sure if that passes the notability test for WP.--Chimino (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's clear that the name is in common use, [59] including some references which are not behind paywalls.[60] [61] Unfortunately those are all just mentions; I could not find detailed sources ABOUT the neighborhood, and most of the information in the article is unconfirmed. Still, as a notable recognized neighborhood I think it deserves a place here. I'll see if I can clean up the article and add more sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article some. --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 8 November 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. Wifione Message 12:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason leblebijian

Jason leblebijian (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 WikiProject Baseball guidelines for biography pages - namely, the player in question is currently in college and has not participated in a Major League, or even minor league, game. Should perhaps be a redirect to a listing of Blue Jays minor league players, at most. Was PRODed, but removed. polarscribe (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable college baseball player. Not entitled to presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NBASEBALL, and I see nothing to suggest that the subject has been covered in any depth in multiple independent, reliable sources as required by the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge with and redirect to List of minor planets: 23001–24000. Full listing period has passed. (non-admin closure)--xanchester (t) 03:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

23804 Haber

23804 Haber (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 cited references, and no assertion of notability. Other minor planets have been either collected into a list (redirect) when it already exists, or deleted entirely. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 8 November 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 Nomination withdrawn. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avacor

This nomination has been blanked as a courtesy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11 with the additional comment "no evidence of notability, or indeed existence". (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaming of Rosie

Dreaming of Rosie (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)

Unsourced article about non-notable book. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - I strongly believe this is a hoax because Google News, Google Books AND a regular Google search provided absolutely nothing, despite also searching "Sherri J. Young writer". I can understand the low Google News and Books count but I would have expected something, although probably not reliable or significantly useful, with a regular Google search (Amazon.com, blogs, primary sources, etc.). However, it is possible this may be an unpublished or yet to be published book. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources at all. No indication of notability. No indication through news or books search that it might be notable.--xanchester (t) 10:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that this exists. Not even Amazon, GoodReads, or other sources that can't be used for notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 8 November 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. Wifione Message 12:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking (game)

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

Non-notable game, probably WP:MADEUP. jonkerz ♠talk 14:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:28, 1 November 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, MBisanz talk 00:57, 8 November 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. Wifione Message 12:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loop (2012 Short Film)

Loop (2012 Short Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, unreleased short film made by an amateur filmmaker with no indications of notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A short that didn't win an inter-college competition and was released on youtube doesn't quite make the grade. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The short hasn't received any real coverage in RS that would show that this is notable. What I can find proves that it exists, but existing is not notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I apologize for having unintentionally violated any Wikipedia policy by creating this article. I realize that the short hasn't received any coverage at all. I am a new member at Wikipedia (though have been reading articles here for a long time) and was not aware that a page without references cannot survive in Wikipedia at all. I've added a link to the whole movie as a reference. Is there anything else I can do to save this article from deletion? Or does its deletion seem imminent?.KrazzyDJ (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gene93k. The best way to prevent deletion is to read WP:NF, the guideline on the notability of films, to see what is needed for notability. The best case is to find independent coverage in media: a review by a news source, an interview about the film, etc, and then provide the source (url or otherwise). BOVINEBOY2008 20:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the high constraints under which I made this movie, I believe getting it some sort of coverage is going to be a difficult task. Nevertheless, I'm trying my best to post my movie at different websites with the hope that I could possible get a few of them to take notice and result in my movie getting some coverage. Let's say that it doesn't get any coverage at this moment but manages to secure some coverage in the near future (highly improbable but just assuming it does). And let's say in the meanwhile my page is deleted. Can I then recreate this page again without violating any Wikipedia policies? KrazzyDJ (talk) 03:04, 4 November 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, MBisanz talk 00:57, 8 November 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. Wifione Message 12:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanga (poetry)

Tanga (poetry) (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)

Neologism. No evidence of notability. Earlier today, I added what is now the only source for the article, which is on an unrelated Japanese blog-post. Neologism itself is anachronistic and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. A search for sources is complicated by the fact that "tanga" is a single, short word that has several other referents. A Google search for tanga poem brought up this Wikipedia article, one blog-style post that seemed to just be a misspelling of tanka, at least two pages devoted to poems on the Tanga region in Tanzania, one poem by a poet named Tanga, and what look like several Wikipedia mirrors on the first page. Indicates this page may be the result of a hoax. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly related, but possibly noteworthy, is that just before deciding to nominate this page for deletion I removed a series of three external links from the page.[62][63][64] These links may at one point have acted as sources for the article, but the are all user-generated/self-published blog-style pages, one appears to no longer exist, and the other two do not make use of the made-up word "tanga". elvenscout742 (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Examining some of the websites that do come up in a Google search for what appears to be more restrictive wording, the one name that appears to come up again and again in relation to the coinage is one Allison Millcock, who self-published (through Lulu Press) a book with the title pausing for a moment ... haiga and tanga. I suspect she is the one who coined the term. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:09, 31 October 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, MBisanz talk 00:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if there is no extensive consensus on one of these debates but no one is arguing in the article's defense? Should I have started with a proposed deletion instead? elvenscout742 (talk) 11:10, 12 November 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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 02:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youth World Amateur Boxing Championships

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

The topic fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines and the article lacks reliable third party sources demonstrating its notability. The lone source in the article is from the event's governing body Holyfield1998 (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewipn (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:EVENT, and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Qworty (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and expand to include the Junior World Championships that proceeded them. This is the highest level of competition for those in the under-19 age group. I stumbled across this article while looking for the right link to include when expanding Ricky Hatton, as articles from when he first rose to prominence mentioned his record in the Junior World Championships. Looking at "what links here" for the article, I see a significant number of notable boxers, such as Shane Mosley and Tyson Fury. Looking up the records of a couple of other big names, I see that people like Floyd Mayweather and Lennox Lewis also competed in these championships. With that calibre of participants, I have no doubt that someone who knew more than me about where to look for boxing sources would be able to source and expand this article with ease. I don't see why WP:SPORTSEVENT is being used above as an argument for deletion, it contains little of direct relevance. This is a world championships (albeit an age-limited one), not a local or regional one. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:29, 29 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 31 October 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, MBisanz talk 00:56, 8 November 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. Wifione Message 12:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble battle

Bubble battle (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)

Unremarkable internet game on facebook? *Maybe* of French origin from the single "et" in the article. Dengero (talk) 16:41, 31 October 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) 14:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 2 November 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, MBisanz talk 00:54, 8 November 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. Wifione Message 12:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrius Grosse

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

The most significant achievements Demetrius Grosse has accomplished are 12 episodes of Justified and 5 episodes of ER, aside from that, the other roles are minor. However, it appears that he is filming a new TV series and two news links cite January 11, 2013 as the release date, so it is possible Demetrius may gain attention for this, but the series will only have ten episodes so probably not. Google News archives provided links that are mostly TV episode announcements for his characters rather than content about Demetrius himself. However, this news article mentions he performed the opening monologue for a 2005 play, Passion Play. This Pittsburgh news article also shows he acted in a play, Black Angels Over Tuskegee, this past March. There is also another news article here mentioning another play, The Birthday Present 2050. Google Books provided nothing useful aside from this Who Was Who on Tv supporting his Heroes role. If users strongly believe his new TV series and these theatre roles are sufficient, I'll withdraw my nomination but I doubt there is much beyond a stub. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only if a couple of third party sources are added before this AfD closes. I'm inclined to think this actor has some minor notability and staying power. - MrX 01:29, 25 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I took another look and still concluded that ST found the available source material and it does not add up to enough coverage from which to write a stand alone article. Having significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions under WP:NACTOR provides a likely presumption there is enough valid content to fill an article about the person per Wikipedia:Notability (people). However, the significant effort to find that source material by SwisterTwister and myself shows that there is not enough valid content to fill an article about the person. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:39, 6 November 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, MBisanz talk 00:53, 8 November 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. Wifione Message 12:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niloufer raan

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

Non notable food recipie. 0 references. 0 Google hits on both versions of the name. redirected to namesake of purported dish, reverted. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 2 November 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, MBisanz talk 00:52, 8 November 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. Wifione Message 12:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bi Yantao

Bi Yantao (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 puffery. (I would say that any article that describes someone as "objective" in the lead is almost always by its definition not objective.) Moreover, this person is described as a professor but not a single university is mentioned in the article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 12:14, 24 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the bar is higher than being the chair of a department. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:31, 2 November 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, MBisanz talk 00:52, 8 November 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. Wifione Message 12:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Car Singh

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

Non-notable minor business. Sources, but not substantial ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The fact that it was explicitly praised by the Economic Times of India news-magazine seems notable enough. That and there are other sources, although some may be press-release-type stuff. That it's small doesn't necessarily mean that it's not notable. The article also appears to be written well, maybe too much like an advertisement but that can be fixed in later edits. 72.47.0.74 (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be the long Times article on many sites that listed their phonenumber and nothing else?[68] or the article on group buying that described an initial offer for 10 people that was eventually subscribed by 28 as being "a big bulk order"?[69] Neither of these are substantial coverage of a substantial topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 21 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 12:27, 24 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 31 October 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, MBisanz talk 00:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although the article contains several sources, they all appear to be mentioning the same thing, the Seeders Venture Capital funding. Google News found additional results here (repeats the same content from pluggd.in) and here (cites the pluggd.in link as their reference). Considering the company was founded nearly three years ago, it's probably too soon though the other possibility is that additional sources for other achievements aren't English. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not a notable company. --Shorthate (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of WP:RS. Most available information is trivial or press release-style material. --Kinu t/c 00:23, 15 November 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. Wifione Message 12:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highway alaska

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

Non-notable band. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 2 November 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, MBisanz talk 00:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards delete for now - Although the O2 Academy Oxford event may suggest notability and there is a BBC News article to support this, there aren't any sources for their two albums or other significant content about them. Considering the Oxford event was four month ago, I would have expected additional coverage (I searched at The Telegraph and The Guardian) but it is possible they may receive future attention. When I searched separately for each of the albums, I received nothing relevant. SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this band to warrant an article at this time; does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BAND.  Gongshow Talk 23:36, 8 November 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. Wifione Message 12:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Forums

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

Non-notable forum. Tagged with {{notability}} since dec. 2007, and none of the listed refs establish notability. (Being used as a source for the tabloid press doesn't necessarily count for notability.) Bjelleklang - talk 00:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:49, 2 November 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 8 November 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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_November_8
No tags for this post.