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 Cumberland County Schools. WP:SNOW and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth M. Cashwell Elementary School (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)

Elementary school. Two sentence article. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is slight, non-notable, run-of-the-mill coverage, and it certainly does exist. Delete of stand-alone article (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cumberland County Schools per well-established precedent described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per nom and Cullen. Not notable. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cumberland County Schools per well-established precedent described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES

• Note for closing admin: If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
• Redirect to Cumberland County Schools, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apeiron (physics journal) (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)

Moribund journal of unclear notability. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Tagged for missing references for 2.5 years with no improvement forthcoming. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A search for 'Apeiron physics -wikipedia' shows that the journal existed and was included in some lists of physics journals, but I could find no in-depth independent sources. WorldCat shows few hits. There is a claim that it is in Ulrich's global serials directory, but I don't know if this DB is selective. It doesn't appear to be indexed in any major science indexing service. Without in-depth independent sources or other successful routes to notability via WP:NJournals, this poetically named physics journal fails notability thresholds, which suggests that the article be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ulrich's is indeed not selective. --Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: 1. "Moribund" (adj. "At the point of death; In terminal decline; lacking vitality or vigor; dying"). That can't form grounds for deletion because it's unsupported by WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. The journal site just says it's "suspended indefinitely". Inactive journals can be revived - an example being the similar physics journal "Physics Essays".

2. From WP:NJOURNALS: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, Wikipedia:Notability (media), etc.: It is possible for a journal not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but still to be notable in some other way, under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines." - So WP:NJOURNALS is a straw man here. 3. From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." - The problem here is that Apeiron as a topic also necessarily refers to an organisation of people and its contributors, which includes clearly notable physicists and astronomers such as Halton Arp, the late Mendel Sachs, Jean-Claude Pecker, and Jean-Pierre Vigier (former assistant to Louis de Broglie, and who would have been Einstein's assistant but was denied entry to the U.S.). User:Randykitty, who launched this Afd, removed a long-standing reference to Jean-Pierre Vigier at 07:25, 11 February 2013 - calling the move "some cleanup" - just three minutes before first nominating the article for deletion under WP:PROD. Silent Key (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 1/ "Moribund journal" was intended only as a description, it is indeed not a reason to delete. Some journals that were disestablished long ago are still notable (notability is not temporary). For a journal that's been "suspended indefinitively", that seems an apt description. 2/ NJournals is kind of an extra way for journals to establish notability. If a journal doesn't meet it (as does this one), there can indeed be other ways to satisfy our guidelines. 3/ The cleanup edit referred to is this one. I did not remove any references, but I did remove an unsourced statement concerning Vigier. Even if that statement could be sourced, it does nothing to establish notability, which is not inherited. So in short, I don't see how your remarks constitute a valid argument to keep this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article lacks content and references. Subject lacks notability. - DVdm (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No references or explication of the notability claim (says peeer reviewed journal, but nothing about what appeared in there for instance). Can't see any important papers in evidence.TCO (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Maycock (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)

Where do we start? Created as a selfbio in March 2007 by RachMontgomeryshire, I then nominated WP:Prod in February 2012, which HJ Mitchell removed as he felt that she was "notable". Still can't find sufficent refs to support many of the claims within the present article, and even if we could, we would suddenly have a whole plethora of civil servants and failed political nominees which wouldn't meet the present set criteria for WP:NOTABILITY within WP:BIOGRAPHY. It's personally one of those articles which for me questions whether we are an encyclopedia with standards of entry, or on a biography basis at the lower end a cross between a paid-for entry in Who's Who and a semi-notables telephone directory. Rgds, Trident13 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She fails WP:POLITICIAN, her only claim to notability. Beyond passing mentions, I find no significant coverage of her in reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no significant coverage found of subject to indicate notability per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as moot. Article was deleted by User:Sphilbrick as a copyright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name Komal (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)

Unencyclopedic: reads like a cross between a dictionary entry and a horoscope. No sources or evidence for the claims made. In any case it seems to be a close paraphrase of another source, but I'm not sure if the original is copyright (since it's a wiki). —Noiratsi (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 21:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 21:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Komal is currently an article on a specific performer. If the name is genuinely common, there probably is a use for a disambiguation page at Komal (name) or something similar, which could also explain what the name means in its original language. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete the current page, with no prejudice against re-creating. The current prose appears to have been copied from this page, which is marked '© 2013 Answers Corporation'. The answers.com page is not dated, but the content was added to Wikipedia on 12 Feb 2013; I am assuming the answers.com version is the original. Cnilep (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:Mirrors and forks/Abc#Answers.com, "Wikipedia pages are clearly attributed to Wikipedia." The text on answers.com is attributed to "First answer by Miss.pelling". This reinforces my suspicion that the Wikipedia version is copied from answers.com, not vice-versa. Cnilep (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure)

No nominal policy/guideline related delete argument from the nominator. A WP:BEFORE nets hundreds of results from some very notable sources such as NY Magazine, LA Times, ABC News, Huffington Post, and the UK Metro in addition to the few sources provided in the article. Most sources cite the meme as "huge" or "enormously popular". Rapid consensus of the community to keep. Mkdw^talk 00:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harlem shake (meme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason Shniken (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not encyclopaedic

• Immediate keep, article does not fall under WP:WWIN as suggested. Worldwide news sources have covered the meme as an google search will show, plus yesterday alone there were over 200,000 searches on wikipedia for Harlem shake. Furious Style (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Second what Furious Style said. When there's a page for Cats_That_Look_Like_Hitler, this should certainly stay, at least for now. I teach media studies, and I'm including a link about the phenomenon as an optional reading in my Internet & Society class. Deejaytalk (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This is going viral very fast and I don't see how it is any different from internet memes. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a "phenomenon", people will look for an article on it, and there are some sources to write one. The main thing is to be vigilant about keeping cruft out of the article. --Delirium (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Hmm... I already hate it. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - It's clearly a notable meme as indicated by the number of news outlets covering the event. CBS has posted at least two articles that focused solely on the meme in the past week. I strongly suggest the nominator read the notability guidelines for such articles, Wikipedia policies and the deletion policy before nominating articles in the future. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 22:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Harlem shake is getting too famous, to be left without a Wikipedia page MrArmJack (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep - Silly and stupid, but eminently notable. It's huge. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. (Non-administrator closure). Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 00:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glenavon School (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)

Primary school. Paucity of refs for its claims. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is standard non-notable, run-of-the-mill coverage and it certainly does exist. Not to be confused with the Canadian school by the same name. Article creator has just a half a dozen edits to his name. Delete of stand-alone article (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 21:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. gadfium 21:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Blockhouse Bay, New Zealand.-gadfium 21:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Blockhouse Bay, New Zealand per long standing precedent documente at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2013 (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 Jay McGraw#RumorFix. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RumorFix (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 website lacking ghits and gnews of substance. Appears to be more of an advertisement. Edited by a media group. reddogsix (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a relevant entertainment news site that is often quoted by mainstream media including CBS News, the Huffington Post and People magazine. It is on par with www.celebuzz.com and www.gossipcop.com, which both have Wikipedia pages. Richardayoub (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sl33pyriceboi (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Why is this article even flagged? It's just like any other entertainment entity/icon here on wiki. How is it advertising? That's a basic bio of what the page is about[reply]

• Comment. A site can be quoted, but being briefly mentioned is not the same thing as having an article or coverage about the website. It's very common for a person, site, paper, or television show to be used as a reference in some format but still fall short of notability guidelines. As far as other articles go, the existence of articles on other websites does not factor into this deletion discussion, as the existence of similarly themed articles could mean that the website you're referencing does have coverage to show notability or it could just be an article that has yet to be flagged for deletion. All that matters is that you can show that the website has received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Trivial mentions or references from another paper/magazine/site/etc does not count. It shows that it's been mentioned and that it might be usable as a reliable source for other articles, but not that it has notability.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, as far as its association with notable persons goes, that does not extend automatic notability to the website, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Unless I can find RS that's about the website specifically, I'm leaning towards redirecting this to Jay McGraw since he is one of the lead figures involved in the website's creation.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jay_McGraw#RumorFix. The website did receive some coverage when it first started up, but other than some news articles announcing that it was launching, there has been a lack of coverage about the website itself. Mentions in other sites or in magazines such as People show that it could be used as a RS, but being a RS doesn't guarantee that it would automatically pass notability guidelines. This doesn't seem to have much notability outside of the people who launched and run it, so I'm proposing that this be redirected to the section on McGraw's article that I created for this. It might be that in the future the website receives more coverage other than trivial mentions in various publications, but until that point it should be redirected. No amount of trivial mentions, no matter where those might be, makes up for a lack of in-depth coverage in RS and to show that this website meets notability guidelines we'd need something to show that it got more in-depth coverage outside of its launch. So far I don't see that it's received it and if not for McGraw becoming involved, I doubt it would have received that. Most of the launch coverage gives equal focus to McGraw, hence why I think he'd be the best redirect target.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree that RumorFix should be listed as part of Jay McGraw's article -- that's a great idea. But, I also believe that it is "notable" on its own account.

You may know that a publication, whether it be print or electronic, gains "notability" -- not by people writing articles about them -- but by others quoting them.

Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia -- and because of that Wikipedia is on the forefront of recognizing digital properties like RumorFix.

As you may know RumorFix has gained respect and recognition of the following: CBS News ABC News CNN Huffington Post Entertainment Tonight Extra Access Hollywood WetPaint Entertainment People Magazine Us Weekly omg! Yahoo MSN Wonderwall Perez Hilton and almost 2,000 others

RumorFix is not unlike the Pasadena Star News,^[1] which has it's own article. It's not unlike WetPaint that has it's own article.^[2]

It is a publication that is respected, quoted and notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.228.192.75 (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2013

• That's not really how notability works here on Wikipedia. Topics pass notability guidelines because they receive coverage that directly talks about them specifically rather than just name dropping them in relation to other subjects. What sets WetPaint as notable is that the site has received coverage about the site itself in multiple venues such as Time Magazine listing it as one of their best websites for 2007. RumorFix hasn't gotten that yet. They've been mentioned in various places, but they're all trivial mentions that say that the site has commented on the story du'jour or mentioning the site as an aside. The news outlets and sites you're mentioning didn't actually talk about the site itself as part of a news story. Even if some of them have, you have to show that there is more coverage other than people commenting on the site's launch, which is conspicuously absent at this point in time. The thing about trivial mentions is that no amount of trivial mentions make up for a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A site mentioning the site is not the same thing as the website receiving coverage that would be considered showing notability. It's just far too soon for this to have its own article. It might merit its own article in the future, but for right now there just isn't enough to justify it passing WP:WEB. But in general though, pointing out that such and such a newspaper or website has an article doesn't really pertain to this AfD. Those are those websites and papers and RumorFix is RumorFix. The presence of another article means nothing, as it could just be that those other articles haven't been nominated for deletion or that they meet notability guidelines that RumorFix does not.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the mentions of RumorFix by respected publications qualifies as a "trivial mention." According to the guidelines, RumorFix must have "information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability." And, when AP, People, USA Today, CNN, CBS News, ABC News, Huffington Post, LA Times and others have written articles quoting RumorFix, they have written a complete article about a news story that was broken by RumorFix. It is not a "trivial mention." They have rewritten a story that first broke on RumorFix and have pulled quotes directly from the article -- in most cases 75 percent of the article is from information gathered by RumorFix.

Richardayoub (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect To Jay_McGraw#RumorFix as per TokyoGirl. Significant promotional editing and sockpuppetry can't get over the fact that this still fails WP:WEB. There is no standalone notability outside of the relationship with McGraw. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone A. Mitchell (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:MILNG which says a serviceman is notable for getting either the highest possible medal for his military, or multiple recipient of the second, Mitchell is being recommended for a medal that doesn't fit either qualification.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC) ...William 17:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 (unambiguous copyright violation) Neutral The article as it stands is a word for word copy of the first and last paragraphs of this page. I will withdraw the !vote if somebody can rewrite this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Information available at WWW.SOC.MIL is consistent with Army and DoD policies and The Principles of Information and contains information cleared for public release^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunpaulie (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I realise that US Military articles are inherently PD, but that isn't enough - it needs to be specifically cleared for CC-BY-SA 3.0. It would be much simpler to rewrite the stub, but this isn't my area of expertise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment <ec> The putative copyvio has been removed twice. All that remains is the bare bones reporting that the subject is to receive the solder's medal. Perhaps before tagging for a CSD, it would be better to look for a prior version that is not speediable. Further, on the subject of the copyvio, it may be that the source is public domain as it is possible the source is an official US document. Not sure about that, but the content has been removed to be certain. Dlohcierekim 17:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If I could find a prior revision that wasn't a copyvio, I would have reverted to it. Unfortunately, every single diff as currently exists is a copy of the article. As I said, if somebody gets to rewrite the stub in their own words before I do, or if somebody can point me to a policy that states I can take US government documentation, modify it, and sell it to others (which is what our CC-BY-SA licence allows), I'll withdraw the speedy claim. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Though I believe PD is PD. Take another look. See if I could have done it better. Dlohcierekim 18:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - all sorted now. Copyright is a bit of a minefield, so I apologise if I came across a bit forcefully, but we've just got to be careful with these things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No problem. Better safe. Though in all modesty, I think my version is much better anyway. Dlohcierekim 18:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errr. If something is PD, it's "cleared for CC-BY-SA 3.0". You can do any dang thing you want with PD information. If public domain wasn't compatible with Wikipeida licensing, there wouldn't be PD images on Commons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable regardless of the copyright concerns. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable per WP:SOLDIER; grade of award insufficient to meet notability per WP:SOLDIER or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Recommended for receipt of a single award that may or may not be third level, but is certainly no higher. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, add note containing contents to 8th Military Information Support Group. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:SOLDIER or WP:ANYBIO. EricSerge (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. — - dain- talk    03:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and snow close - what we have here is a failure of notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Day & Co (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)

Overly promotional, substantially the work of a corporate COI editor, presumably paid too, and no indication of either notability within their field, or independent sourcing of such notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 21:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A personal injury law firm; there are others. Lists of trade awards don't turn businesses into encyclopedia subjects; they just turn articles into advertisements. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I declined a CSD A7, because WP:NOTCSD says neologisms cannot be speedy deleted, so I'm bringing it here as something that looks like it was made up one day and is completely devoid of any hits outside of Wikipedia space, reliable or otherwise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per nom. Andrew³²⁷ 17:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The title of the article does not appear in a "find on this page" of its one and only source. 79.123.57.130 (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I was the speedier, and I acknowledge that per WP:NOTCSD, my speedy was in error. Apologies. Storkk (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This deletion is without prejudice to re-creation if sources can be found later. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thailand provinces by Human Development Index (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, and I was unable to verify any of the given information. The latest UNDP national reports for Thailand (2007 and 2009) use only the Human Achievement Index (HAI) and make no mention of an HDI-type score. HDI values were given for the 2003 report, but they don't match what is claimed in the article, and its lack of inclusion in later reports suggest that the UNDP has abandoned it as a reliable indicator (and therefore not suitable for basing a Wikipedia list article on). Many other local organisations compile their own development indices, but none of them that I've seen features a similar aggregated score. The inclusion of Pattaya, which is not a province, casts extra doubt on the list's accuracy as is. Paul_012 (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This case is not for deletion, the article is malformed and unsourced, but I see an undeniable encyclopedic value just by reading its article. The article needs a clean up and proper source. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that without a source, there's nothing in this article left worth keeping. It may well be WP:MADEUP or even a WP:HOAX, for all we know. If someone is able to identify the claimed source, I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. But I have tried with considerable effort and failed. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Notable but needs sight of the source it would be notable if there was any hard evidence this 2007 (2550 in Thailand) report existed.. I left a message on the creator of Thai page, but he may have just copied it from English, Thai years always confuse me. I would think though HDI numbers for Thai Provinces must have been published in 2009 otherwise why state "The latest complete national report was 2007 report, published in 2009. Bueng Kan Province did not included in this report as it was not yet separated." In ictu oculi (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Another thing is that the claimed values seem very suspicious. They are way higher than those given in the 2003 UNDP report. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, it's seems notable but the only references I could find in a a Google search are mirrors.^King Jakob _C2 17:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article creator has responded on his/her talk page. Quote follows on the next line. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if it's from UNDP or not. But I have found another "Human Achievement Index" by UNDP. But I don't know if it is same as HDI. But I got the information long time ago.--DKH2010 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Nominator comment: There have been keep !votes with the reason that the list is encyclopaedic and notable. However, this was never in doubt. The issue here is that other editors and I have not been able to locate reliable sources to verify the topic at all. WP:DEL-REASON #7 clearly states that "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" is a valid reason for deletion. The HDI is published by the UNDP, but the UNDP reports for Thailand contain no such data (after 2003). The figures given in the article are vastly different from the UNDP figures for 2003. The issue has been raised on the article talk page over a year ago. The article creator isn't able to recall the source of the information. I believe this has been a reasonable attempt to locate existing sources. Sources are available to support a new list based on the Human Achievement Index, but that would be better created as a new, unrelated article. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the HDI data has been reasonably challenged and no source has been found, despite substantial effort. The unsourced data should be removed. However, since this leaves the article without any effective content, the article should be deleted. I agree with the nominator that this is not a matter of notability. Thincat (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'm now convinced that the total lack of references makes this article not worth keeping.^King Jakob _C2 18:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has expressed his interest in withdrawing this, in addition there's no way this will be deleted as of now, looks pretty notable. (non-admin closure) gwickwire^talk_edits 19:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Shuker (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's subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, he's written some books, quite a few, but all are VERY limited distribution, or self-published, few are found in Library of Congress, those from larger publishers, but almost no critique, or review or even news or any mention beyond some online retailers selling copies, of them exist. None of the books meet WP:NBOOK. Subject does not meet WP:GNG as no significant independent coverage of him exists, pretty much only known within the very small sect of "Cryptozoologists." Criteria under WP:AUTHOR is best match for him but criteria #1, I don't see evidence for this, he's not published any academic papers, nothing that I can see cites for or anything like that. I did a little analysis of the WP:N on the article's talk page: Talk:Karl_Shuker#Criticism. Apparently the article's subject has been editing and maintaining this page and hawking over it for years, he made some legal threats at even the mention of putting critical information in the article or deleting it, so was just recently banned. I thought before I go through any trouble reforming the article to be in compliance with WP:NPOV, even if sources could be tracked down to do so, that I'd see if it even merits inclusion first. — raekyt 16:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails the guidelines per nom's detailed analysis. ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster and Taschen are very notable publishers. Angrybeerman (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable publishers, but they also publish non-notable books. Being published, even by a notable publisher, is not one of the criteria for inclusion... — raekyt 17:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 'cryptozoology' is not a "cult", but an offshoot (if quirky) of folklore and cultural studies. It has had notable 'real science' successes too, finding new species through the stories told about them - the editor's POV criticism are dealt with through the cryptozoology page itself. Fortean Times has a circulation in the UK of 17,000 (according to Wikipedia) and can be found in any high street newsagent. It is sceptical in its perspective and this chap is a key writer for it, so his stuff reaches thousands of people every month - not a "very limited distribution". He is not some loon as is being portrayed and much of his work is about lost-and-refound species (i.e. thought extinct, but not) and new sub-species. As the page says, he is a fellow of two learned societies, holds a doctorate in zoology and has had a new species named after him, as well as being a specialist consultant to things like the Guinness Book of Records. There are far less notable people all over Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.15.249 (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying the field cryptozoology isn't notable, I'm arguing that Karl Shuker doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. The argument your trying to make is that he meets critera #2 under WP:AUTHOR, that he's a signifigant contributor too Fortean Times, a minor magazine. Searching his name on Fortean Times' website yields no results. So what evidence that he's a "significant contributor" to this magazine is there? These claims need to be backed up by reliable sources. Writing some books, academic degrees, all those are not criteria for inclusion. Being a "fellow" with those societies (Royal Entomological Society and Zoological Society of London) seems to be a pretty low bar to meet, and again not criteria for inclusion. I'm also not sure where you get a list of fellows on their websites/publications to actually verify this... — raekyt 17:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • His regular column covers all of page 25 of the Feb 2013 edition - articles about continuing thylacine sightings and an out-of-range sighting of ajolotes. I am guessing that they don't put the content on their website as they want people to buy the magazine - give them a call if you want to check! The criteria for fellowship of the Royal Entomological Society is on their Wikipedia page: "those who have made a substantial contribution to entomology, through publications or other evidence of achievement." That makes him pretty notable, albeit to the cult of entomologists...
  • Not sure why the search engine doesn't pick it up, but try here: http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/5536/youve_been_trunkoed.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.15.249 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As far as I can see, Dr. Shuker is one the most prominent cryptozoologists. If cryptozoology itself is notable, then why wouldn't on of its most prominent practitioners be? Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 17:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which criteria is that, specifically, that states if A is notable then B automatically becomes notable? Notability isn't WP:INHERIT. — raekyt 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 88.97.15.249, who said pretty much what I was going to say. The article clearly needs to be re-written to remove the (quite blatant) promotional tone, but that's a separate issue and has no bearing here. His books have been reviewed in in The New Scientist [1], [2], [3]. Articles mentioning his work and quoting him also here in the Glasgow Herald; here in the New York Times, here from Reuters, here in the Augusta Chronicle. Also reviews of his Dragons A Natural History in the Washington Post, Buffalo News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution [4]. Need I go on? Clearly passes WP:AUTHOR. Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I can only presume that User:Raeky is American. If the significance of any book, or corpus of work, is to be based on whether or not the Library of Congress holds copies then I'm afraid that a great number of non-American academics will also need to be deleted from Wikipedia. I have, for instance, just checked their catalogue for the publications of, arguably, the UK's leading living archaeologist. He has been writing for almost sixty years and has authored countless books and articles. The print-out of his full bibliography runs to just short of 500 pages of A5. His Wikipedia page is, rightly, very extensive. The Library of Congress holds only one of his books. I suspect that similar results will be found for many non-American academics. I might also add that this certain archaeologist has, in the past, included bibliographic references to Dr Shuker's work in his own peer-reviewed articles for highly academic national journals. I must also point out that Dr Shuker is regularly featured on television in the UK as the notable authority on the subjects of cryptozoology and newly discovered species. Vibracobra23 (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally agree. Just take a look at Shuker's WorldCat Identity: 56 works in 105 publications in 10 languages and 3,556 library holdings (and their data isn't even exhaustive). Voceditenore (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw AFD Based on above I think it's clear that my searches wasn't as inclusive as it should be. I still think that he barely squeaks in as notable though, but enough of his books are covered, and his contributions to the magazine and being used on television probably is enough to satisfy criteria #2 in WP:AUTHOR. — raekyt 18:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this was a bad faith nomination. The article's subject was not banned - simply blocked until he withdrew his legal threat - a common mistake made by novice, living subjects of biographical articles. The subject himself is obviously notable and the nominator failed to exercise due diligence. Indeed, this nomination was hastily made in the midst of a discussion with the article's subject and several other editors regarding notability, etc. That is to say, the nominator didn't wait for his ill-founded concerns to be fully addressed. Rklawton (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of most watched sporting events in 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a one-off list created in 2005. You could argue that we should rather create similar lists for all other years, rather than deleting this, and if there is concensus for that I have nothing against it. But, as it stands, I question the notability of the list, and think Wikipedia would be better without it (we have similar lists at List of most watched television broadcasts but we could create an article on List of most watched sporting events. What do you think? Coin945 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NOT#INFO Secret ^account 19:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DISCRIMINATE. There should be a list of superlatives like these in the encyclopedia, but not on a per-year basis, and certainly not one that is completely unsourced. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of roundabouts in Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Listcruft. Do not need an exhaustive listing of roundabouts. Dough4872 15:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Roundabouts are rarely individually notable (seriously, one of these is in a parking lot) and an exhaustive list of all roundabouts would be crufty and probably impossible to properly reference. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:L and there's a lack of reliable sources: we need sources providing detailed coverage, as well as showing why this is a notable topic in general. Wikipedia:NGEO says major roads are usually notable, but regional/local roads may not be, and doesn't mention smaller road features. Unless someone wants to write a history of roundabouts in PA, with appropriate sources, delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication that those traffic circles meet WP:GNG, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If there is an exception, it should be mentioned on the local state road page. Secret ^account 19:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While I appreciate the amount of work done on improving the article consensus is to delete. I would be happy to userfy the page if requested so that it can be maintained until more information concerning the breed is available. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murray River Curly Coated Retriever (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 mentioned in any works outside of breeder/kennel websites. Nonnotable variety of the curly-coated retriever. TKK ^{bark !} 00:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User 'Tikuko' obviously has no knowledge regarding the MRCCR, futhermore should be banned from any further edits due to disregard and the users lack of any knowledge what so ever on these dogs. As a proud owner of Austrailas unique breed of Retriever for over 20 years and former chairman of the MRCCR association;^[4] Please see http://www.mrccr.org/ and contact the association for futher detail. Recently the MRCCR underwent DNA testing which result in that they are a breed of there own right and not a CCR. There is an application to have this breed registered as a sporting dog, due to it heritage of hunting use which still occurs today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRCCR (talk • contribs) 04:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — MRCCR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I do not consider being interested in a specific topic to be a negative. I do consider people who edit multiple sites or sites that they are not-knowledgeable about are not educated on the subject and should discuss their grievances before editing. merging or putting forward a proposal for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markable1 (talk • contribs) — Markable1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Markable1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Comment - The fact that the entire article is referenced to the Murray River Curly Coated Retriever website is part of the reason I nominated this article. No original research. This is not the place to discuss your grievance with me. --TKK ^{bark !} 05:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained there has been original research by DNA verification, this has shown that the Murray is a distinct breed. Markable1

The argument for deletion is very weak and unsubstantiated. Although I am involved with an unrelated retriever breed I have no affiliation whatsoever with Murrays. This breed is currently fulfilling the requirements to be listed as a separate breed from the CCR, and any research which is current will show this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.19.251 (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 101.119.19.251 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment - Where did you even come from? Were you told to come here? --TKK ^{bark !} 05:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wow Tikuko, that's a hostile remark. Not everyone has the time or energy to be a general editor, but only come out of the woodwork for things which they passionately care about. (Although I give you points for not raising to the bait after MRCCR's uncalled for attack on you earlier.) I haven't edited Wikipedia for some years now, but I trust that doesn't disqualify me from commenting here. Additional comments will be added below. Limeguin (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apologies, I did not mean to come across as hostile, I was just trying to figure out what was going on. --TKK ^{bark !} 09:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have owned Murray River Curly Coated Retrievers for 53 years. They are a separate and distinct breed from Curly Coated Retrievers which I have also owned. They have been a distinct breed in Australia most likely dating pre 1850. We have evidence from newspapers from the 1840s and photographs of similar dogs from the 1850s in Australian online collections. I have researched these dogs for the past 7 years, I started the Yahoo group I wrote the original wiki page which was written well before the Murray River Curly Coated Retriever Association was formed or any DNA testing carried out.

Comment D_mentias, if you have evidence from newspapers from the 1840s, could you put them up somewhere on the Internet where they are visible to others? I don't think it is fair to expect Wikipedia editors to sign up to a Yahoo Group or Facebook in order to see this evidence. On the other hand, I also don't think it is fair for editors to dismiss such evidence without seeing it if they haven't at least made a good-faith attempt to view such evidence. Limeguin (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2013 Printed evedence of the acknowledgement of the Murray can be found in the book The Curly Coated Retriever -Audrey Nicholls 1992, pp. 89-90. Markable1.

Now you try to tell me they are a non notable variant of the CCR(they actually pre-date CCRs) or that I am advertising the breed organization? We don't even have a Murray Breeder listed. The listing for Soft Maple, P. Mathis and CCR were there because of references and sparsity of other sources. CCR Australia does acknowledge the Murray as a separate breed.

I wish to protect and preserve the Murray for all future Australians. The Murray is a very iconic Australian dog and symbol. D_mentias D mentias (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC) p.s users have not been canvassed for this page however the proposed deletion and reasons were shared on the FB and Yahoo groups and the Association notified. MRCCR owners and supporters are very passionate about this true blue little Aussie retriever I would expect more supporters will weigh in on any argument. D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — D mentias (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - users have not been canvassed for this page however the proposed deletion and reasons were shared on the FB and Yahoo groups and the Association notified That is very nearly the definition of canvassing.

Everything you said is nice, but you (and all the other comments) have still failed to address my concerns with the breed. --TKK ^{bark !} 13:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Further research into the subject helps nothing. There is a passing mention of the breed here but this is not enough to establish notability. Here it is stated that the "Curly-coated retriever... are used on duck in the swamps and lagoons of the Murray River." It says nothing of a Murray River-specific breed or variety. Here it is yet again referred to as simply a curly-coated retriever - "In Australia they are used in the swamps and lagoons of the Murray River, duck being the chief quarry, and here again they are spoken of by their admirers as being the best workers and stayers of any form of Gun Dog, the steadiest, the most tender mouthed, and quite unsurpassed in water." The first five pages of a google web search for "Murray River Curly Coated Retriever" did not turn up any reliable secondary sources. There are no results on Google Scholar except for the first book I linked and a citation to an article on the Tweed Water Spaniel.

As far as the sources cited in the article itself:

• 1, 4 and 5 are dead
• 2 is an article written by User:D mentias on his personal website and is original research and a primary source.
• 3 is to a Yahoo group run by the breed's association, so it's original research, a primary source and probably not reliable. It's also a closed group, so if anyone cites anything to it, it can't be accessed.

I am still thoroughly convinced that this breed/variety is not notable enough to warrant having its own Wikipedia article. If deletion fails, I propose a merge or redirect to Curly-coated retriever, as all the sources above seem to believe that's what this dog is. --TKK ^{bark !} 17:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re the links. 1 and 5 are indeed dead. But since the original article was written and referenced in Sept 2008 this is not surprising.No 3 is not the Associations website but a Yahoo group which actually pre-dated the original wiki article. No 4 is current and takes you to the National Library or Australia Trove which is a digitised newspaper database and relates to the earliest sighting of a Murray like Retriever in Australia. 1844. I only added this link yesterday so I know it is not dead. No 2 Mathis article I did not write, his information is incorrect at the MRCCR did not originate on the Murray River in New Zealand but was included originally because of the sparsness of information. In fact the only thing I have ever written was the original wiki page which over the years others have contributed too or altered. The links you purported to find were of poor quality and the illustration even poorer. Th FB and Yahoo groups are closed for a reason, if you leave a group open people come along and spam it not unlike a wiki page only worse. The Yahoo group is not owned by the Association as contributers here attest either are the FB groups. However anyone may apply for membership. The Murray River Curly Coated Retriever Association is also available to owners and supporters should they wish to pay their dues and join. They also publish a newsletter which is available on the FB group.

As to the breed not being notable enough. I note that its probably closest relative the American Water Spaniel has its own breed page on wiki as does its close relative the Boykin spaniel. In Australia other iconic Australian dogs like the Koolie and the Australian Kelpie also have wiki pages. The MRCCR is arguably an older breed than both these dogs. The fact that this iconic Australian retriever's wiki page was proposed for deletion on Australia Day was noted by owners and supporters.

I also repeat that this dog is not a sub species of the CCR. DNA reseach carried out in 2012 demonstrated that the MRCCR is a DNA proven breed not closely related to others. This was published in the Murray Mail no 8 in Dec 2012 which is available on the FB site. The Murray Association hold the fuller report. I imagine CCR owners and breeders would be up in arms if the MRCCR was included in their breed.

In Australia the Murray River Curly Coated Retriever is often referred to as just a Curly Retriever. They are probably more common than CCRs. There has been immense confusion between the MRCCR and the CCR for probably a century. Both CCR and MRCCR people are working hard to distinguish between the breeds and the wiki pages for both the CCR and the MRCCR contribute towards this. Your suggestions that the Murray is a non notable CCR would put us back a century again D mentias (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC) D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links that I found where the only mentions of the breed I could find that were not directly associated with the retriever's club. Again, that means there is a lack of secondary sources, which means that the dog is not notable. Liking something also doesn't make it notable enough to include. It doesn't matter if every single dog in Australia is a Murray retriever, if there's nothing written about them then it's not notable.

And again, you can DNA-test until the cows come home but unless it's published somewhere reliable it won't make a whit of difference.

The other Australian dog breeds you mentioned have substantial secondary sources available, so the comparison is essentially moot. As far as nominating the article on Australia Day, sorry but I've never even heard of that so I couldn't have possibly done it intentionally.

You act as if I'm conspiring against you but I'm not. I'm acting in what i believe to be the best interest of Wikipedia, and every effort I've made to improve your article to comply with WP:MOS has been reverted (and in violation of the three revert rule to boot)). --TKK ^{bark !} 02:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having several curlies and then having been to Australia to see the MRCCR first hand, I can say with no hesitation it is a different breed. You want proof, and proof is given here. But it's not 'official' enough for 'Tikuko'. User 'Tikuko', find something better to do with you time, like graduating!! This dog is a different breed and you have no proof otherwise. Silent stalker (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC) — Silent Stalker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Howicus (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Comment -- Silent stalker, please keep the personal remarks to yourself. The question isn't whether MRCCR is a separate breed, but whether it is a notable breed that requires its own entry in an encylopedia. Based on the lack of sources (books, newspaper or magazine articles, movies staring famous Murrays, etc.) this does not seem to be a notable (famous, well-known) breed, and probably should be included as a subsection under Curly Coated Retrievers or similar. Philip Mathis describes the Murray as a smaller variety of the Curly. Regardless of how wonderful and distinctive the dogs themselves are, and I know a Murray and he is a lovely dog, I think that it is fair to say that outside of the circle of fanciers, the Murray is not yet well-known even among dog fancier circles. No matter how worthy the breed, Wikipedia is not intended for fanciers to promote their well-loved breed. Get Murrays mentioned in books and newspapers, then Wikipedia can follow. Limeguin (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Limeguin I would argue that most Australians when thinking of a Curly Coated Retriever actually think or a MRCCR. To them all curlies are small and liver. They are not aware of the taller pedigreed type. The continued confusion between the MRCCR and the CCR does both noble breeds a diservice. They are notable as Australia's only Australian developed retriever. The wiki page in a small way demonstrate the difference. There is also much interest in the MRCCR from Europe and North America, we have members on Yahoo an FB who are closely following their development and one day wish to own one. It is not just an Australian rare breed dog there is genuine international interest...look Silent Stalker seemed pleased to meet one(I don;t know who they are) D mentias (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC) D_mentias[reply]

• Delete. None of the sources provided are reliable. The sources given are 1) a blog, 2) a yahoo group, 3) a link to a newspaper from 1844; unfortunately, the classified ads, 4) an article mostly about regular CCRs, with only a two-sentence mention of this dog, 5) the MRCCR breeder's association, and 6) and 7) are Facebook groups. This breed is simply not notable enough for an article. Howicus (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howicus, if the 1844 article is a newspaper advertisment, that is evidence that people in 1844 routinely expected others to recognise the name of the breed. That at least is (minor) evidence of notability. Limeguin (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further links have been added. The 1844 links was to prove how long this type of dog had been in Australia. There is photographic evidence of an 1893 MRCCR on wiki that I put up yesterday.The original photo is held by the State Library Victoria, it is used with permission. The dog breeds true to type 120 years later. I could look for further newspaper and journal articles but as you say you are a self proclaimed deletionist. I added the article or blog by Mr Westfall suggesting that the Murray may be related to an earlier and extinct retriever the Norfolk.

I then added the full breed description written by Ms R.Bell in 2012 and added a link to a CCR description which demonstrates that they are indeed separate dogs. It is not only size but the fact that Murrays don't come in black proves this. I also added photographic evidence of the difference in size between the breeds.

The Mathis article does reference Murrays as a smaller different dog. YOu need to read the erticle "This smaller version is a very popular duck dog, found mostly along the Murray River, where it is not surprisingly called the Murray River Curly. The River Curlies are, for the most part, unregistered with The Kennel Club, and many River Curly fans feel it should be considered a separate breed."(http://www.landaracurl.com/Origin.html) Mr Mathis has published more fully on curlies, Australian readers would be wary as he refers to them as NZ. A book review here expresses this concern http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R2RC8NTGDWMBIK/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2RC8NTGDWMBIK

Now the DNA evidence has been published but it is in a Murray MAil Newsletter that you claim doesn't count. It is available for download on the FB site.It is not as if we are hiding it. You have to nbe a member but that is easy. The DNA testing was organized by the Koolie club of Australia who themselves had trouble getting their breed acknowledged.

The Australian Murray River Curly Coated Retriever is an old and iconic Australian breed pre-dating even the kelpie. It survived for 160+ years without a breed club or recognition by dog authorities. It has bred true to type for at least 120 years going on photographic evidence. The yahoo group started in 2006. The original wiki page was written in 2008. The Murray Association was formed in 2010. DNA testing proving a serparate breed carried out in 2011 and 2012. The wiki page needed cleaning up but in one foul swoop you are trying to remove them from the record entirely...all on our National Day. I tried to simplify the wiki page but you are asking for even higher levels of proof. Today I added more information and photos again clogging the site. At the same time you have not demonstrated any knowledge of this unique Australian retriever and even less of CCRs to which they are not related as suggested by user Silent Stalker. D mentias (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D_mentias, there is no point in digging up more and more evidence that Murrays are a separate breed. That is not being questioned. What is being questioned is whether or not they are a notable (famous, well-known) breed. If not, then they should be included as a subsection of some other related, but more notable, breed. If you believe that Curlies are the wrong breed, then please nominate another one.

Also, please stop bring up Australia Day. For starters, it's Australia Day, not Murray River Curly Coated Retriever Day. (If it were MRCCR Day, that would be excellent proof that it was a notable breed.) Secondly, as an Aussie myself I know that Australia is the centre of the universe, but most poor benighted foreigners don't know or care. This is not a personal attack against Aussies, Australia, mateship, the Anzacs or Murrays. It is a simple question of whether or not the MRCCR breed is notable enough to get its own article in a encyclopedia. Go out and promote the breed. Get dog fancier magazines to talk about it. Get newspaper articles written about Murrays. Get Dog Encyclopedias to list them. Then Murrays will be a notable breed and can graduate from a subsection to a full article on its own. Limeguin (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MRCCR is not related to the CCR. It is a gundog, that is what they have in common they both sit on the gundog spectrum along with other retrievers, spaniles, setters and pointers. Many gundogs of less note have their own page. The Murray is a purebred not unlike a Bull Arab. Neither have pedigrees yet the Bull Arab has its own Wiki page. WE have got magazines to write artcles(shooting Tine Dec 2012) They are listed on easypetmd.com as an Australian dog. There is genuine interest from the wider dog world in the MRCCR. D mentias (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)D_mentias[reply]

Comment D mentias I cannot find any reference on the Internet to a "Shooting Tine" or "Shooting Time" magazine. Can you provide a link to the magazine, or tell us where it is available? Limeguin (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment D mentias, you give easypetmd.com as evidence of notability, but it actually undercuts your argument. Easypetmd clearly states that the "Murray River Curly Coated Retriever" is a New Zealand breed, not Australian, and is a smaller variety of the Curly Coated Retriever. To quote:

   The New Zealand version of the breed, however, is considerably smaller in size than that 
   of the proper English Curley. This new smaller version has become a popular duck dog in 
   New Zealand found manly around the Murray River, where they are known as the Murray River 
   Curly Coated Retriever. 

Limeguin (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EasyPetMD isn't really a reliable source, anyways. It's an SEO scraper isn't it? --TKK ^{bark !} 23:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D mentias, please read WP:Other Stuff Exists. The existence of similar articles should not affect the discussion here. Each article must be considered on its own merits. Howicus (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No WP:RS, the MRCCR is not presently able to meet the WP:GNG.

• Additional comment to above - I have spent time today trying to resolve a number of format issues in the article, which has meant I have also attempted to sort out problems with the references. These actions have confirmed to me that sources are to blogspots, facebook, yahoo groups etc - these would normally all be removed from articles. Other references do not support the arguments stated (only referring to CCRet from the area, rather than an individual breed). The fact people are evidently passionate about these dogs does not prove the MRCCR is currently at a stage to justify inclusion as a separate encyclopaedia article. I believe a merge into the Curly-coated Retriever article might be a compromise until further notability can be established. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sagaciousphil for resolving the format errors. My expertise in the MRCCR does not extend to this. All I have ever wanted is for people to distunguish between the MRCCR and other breeds. I believe someone tried to add the MRCCR to the CCR wiki page yesterday which has already been reversed by another wiki contributor. CCR contributors and owners understand that these are separate non-related breeds. Many lesser known Australian and overseas breeds have there own breed page.If I want to learn about a breed of dog the first place I look is wiki. Not all these dogs are registered and pedigreed or recognized outside their own country. We have had a separate inclusion as a wiki article since Sept 2008 yet only this last weekend other contributors proposed the page for deletion. If the MRCCR page is deleted interested people will not be able to learn about them without much trolling through google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D mentias (talk • contribs) 04:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if this page is deleted, searching for Murray River Curly Coated Retriever would take people directly to the MRCCR website. Howicus (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I would say to merge it to Curly Coated Retriever. The breed obviously has quite a following, just not many scholarly sources or sources in general. I did find one more source here by searching the National Library of Australia. - cReep talk 07:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue against merging as would any CCR person. Limeguin already added the MRCCR to the CCR page. Within 24 hours this was reversed by a user I think called Curlycoat who understands that the MRCCR and CCR are not variants of the same dog. The CCR has a long and traceble pedigree is larger and comes in 2 colours.Merging is unacceptable to CCR breeders.

Comment: with all due respect to both D mentias and Curlycoat, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia for everyone, and not to be held hostage to the parochial concerns of a tiny minority of breed enthusiasts. CCR breeders are not the only people who determine whether or not merging is acceptable. While breeder's opinions will be given due weight, the deciding factor is 'notability', not DNA analysis. Limeguin (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MRCCR as yet us not recognised by canine authorties(about to be recognized as a sporting breed). It Hx in Australia extends back to the 1840s and was believed to be on the goldfields. There are more pictures on trove including this one^[5]. Users of the net do not always know what they are looking for. If they are not sure of a breed they may look up a few types, this is where wiki is usefull. I have learnt of 3-4 similar breeds to the MRCCR from wiki then I followe d the links to learn more. THese days wiki is often the first port of call to people seeking information

D mentias (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was thinking deeply about this and my first vote was to be keep, but the sourcing made me change of opinion. The ones featured on the article are not confident at all and cannot be categorized as reliable, and a short search at Google showed not much reliable sources to add. Unless I am missing something, this type of breed was not very popular, or maybe it is not (or never was) popular enough to deserve a thorough biological/anatomical/etc study or research. As it is, and after my search, I can't simply support the inclusion of this article on the encyclopedia. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 05:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just started to look at this site but what strikes me (as a professional research librarian) is the lack of organisation around the arguments. I would suggest that the arguments for and against the MRCCR be articulated and the evidence cited. I own a MRCCR and my friend has a CCR and to me it is obvious that they are separate breeds. However, as a researcher I believe the best way to sort this out is not by slanging at each other but allowing each member to have their turn to present the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.127.243 (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete, I was able to find a couple of trivial mentions in independent sources (such as this), but nothing substantial about this dog breed. It would be most helpful if sources discussing the breed in depth could be provided, that are independent of breeders' associations or other groups with a vested interest in promoting the breed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 13:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Have spent at least 11 hours in background research. A definite breed, as is also obvious if looking at various Youtube videos. It is apparent there is a large and a small variant. Clear rust colored or "liver" coats caused by a red/brown dominant gene. Definitely not a curly coated retriever which are clearly larger black dogs. Have started to place in references. One should not expect large kennel associations to recognize breeds they do not believe they would make money on in gathering situations. Dog politics has been well evident for years. It should not be expected that U.S. associations or books would be the best source for material, but rather sources found in Australia. What is important in Wikipedia is "verifiability", not necessarily truth. Although a good editor will always incorporate truth and strive to achieve this with a greater effort. Beginning to remove out the advertisement style of the wording. Merging is definitely not appropriate as totally different (unless one merged both the articles into a retriever one but then the article size would be way too large). Looks more like a wording issue and a referencing issue to this editor. Will continue more tomorrow evening my time as am too tired now. T.D. (Los Angeles).--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Spent 15 more hours of researching, and now working through article. Adding more reference cites. Ending now. Will resume Monday, February 18.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Spent another 15 hours background work, and did further editing and reference cites. Will continue tomorrow as now tired.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Notation: Separately, and without requiring consensus, this article is keepable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES as this is related to Canis lupus familiaris, itself inherently notable, as they are "all subspecies of the gray wolf" (which is also inherently notable). See WP article Dog breed:

• Intro section which states in part: "Dog breeds are groups of closely related and visibly similar domestic dogs, which are all of the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris, having characteristic traits that are selected and maintained by humans..." "The term dog breed is also used to refer to natural breeds or landraces, which arose through time in response to a particular environment that included humans..."

The historical citations and photos, both over a century ago, and in present time show this.

• Description section which states in part: "Dog breeds are not scientifically defined biological classifications, but rather are groupings defined by clubs of hobbyists called breed clubs."

This grouping has historically been noted as per the citations and photos, both over a century ago, and in modern times. MRCCR is a grouping recognized now by a breed club which established itself in 2010, if not before (2006). This alone gives it notability status.

• Classification section which states in part: "In biology, subspecies, race and breed are equivalent terms. Breed is usually applied to domestic animals; species and subspecies, to wild animals and to plants; and race, to humans. Colloquial use of the term dog breed, however, does not conform to scientific standards of taxonomic classification. Breeds do not meet the criteria for subspecies since they are all considered a subspecies of the gray wolf..."

Being a subspecie of the gray wolf, it is therefore notable, as are other dog groupings.

• Notation: Separately, from above, sufficient editing and referencing work has now been done that the article is keepable at this point. Continued work by others, or myself, can continue to improve the article.
• Notation: Collectively, or in any part combination thereof, this article is keepable for some or all of the aforementioned items.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES in its entirety. "All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. Because of this, they generally survive AfD." Note that this only confers notability for species, not dog breeds or other sub-groupings. The MCCR does not have a valid name. Also, the quote you gave states that "Breeds do not meet the criteria for subspecies", so you can't argue that this breed is "notable as a subspecies". I'm not trying to invalidate the work you've done on this. I'm just saying that your arguments for keeping without consensus are invalid. Howicus (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, this would then require that all dog, and probably cat, articles would have to be deleted in Wikipedia. That seems illogical.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, because most of these other breeds have been extensively written about in third party sources, so they meet WP:GNG. Take a look at, say, the Border collie article. --TKK ^{bark !} 22:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems to be of interest only to the group of people making baseless arguments here. And maybe all their friends. But I can find no reliable sources that could establish this as being remotely notable. Fails WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree; WP:GNG met. Another 12 hours. Have now come across hundreds of general and major newspapers with articles. The term to generally use is brown curly coated retrievers. The article name could be changed to this but I think the existing MRCCR should be used in its current context. I have placed numerous references in the article's beginning. I could literally bombard with more. It is all over the place over the decades of a century. WP:GNG has now been met as all these references are in major Australian and New Zealand newspapers. I would not expect U.S. editors, like myself or those objecting, to set the standard on this Australian dog icon. The baseless arguments statement is rather stupid. The baseless view seems to now have been contradicted by the public newspaper articles. I am even more surprised now after all the personal editing effort and am personally satisfied that the article should be kept based upon the uncovered evidence. I came across this article because it was next in a log concerning a physics article that I was working on. I am not surprised the early commenters have not continued on. You collectively seem rather a hostile group which could have otherwise improved the article or assisted instead. Having read through them now, I am quite suspicious that proposing the article's deletion, on Australia Day no less!, was not intentional. The world is a much bigger place than U.S. only views and prejudice. I can understand the article supporters since they put in a great deal of input time, but I am somewhat appalled at the other side. Confirmed deletionist? What kind of attitude is that. That alone shows bias and non-objectivity. Will continue with further editing tomorrow. Ending with a middle ground supporting good editing viewpoint instead; Q.E.D.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion isn't going anywhere and reading the arguments for and against I see that no consensus has been reached nor do I see one forming. J04n(talk page) 11:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of deceased American comic book characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. This topic is not useful. Accuracy is not possible because death is inconsistent in comic books, for reasons that include resurrections, reboots, retcons, alternate universes, alternate timelines, hoaxes, dreams, imaginary stories, cliffhangers, editorial edicts, and outright errors. For example, characters that died before DC Comics did their New 52 reboot are still dead in the pre-New 52 version of reality but are not dead in the one getting currently published in most common books. A few stories since that reboot, however, are apparently set in the pre-New 52 reality. Arnold Wesker is still dead in several versions of reality but not in New 52. I could go on and on with examples that probably won't mean much to most of you. We're not supposed to focus on "now" when writing about fiction anyway. We cannot list every character that ever died because all DC Comics and Marvel Comics characters have died before. We have already discussed this on the WikiProject Comics talk page[5]. Those of us who talked about this all agreed the page needs to be deleted. Nobody has objected to this plan. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As Doczilla points out, death is a nebulous concept in comic books, so this list is pretty much unmaintainable. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's not really an encyclopedic topic, since it's so subject to change and there's little value in recording people who died but returned to life due to its commonness. There's a related article Comic book death which is problematic (though perhaps salvagable), indicating that the topic as a whole may not be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dead comic book characters. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unsustainable, non-notable in the world at large and in the context of comic books, ultimately trivial. Where exceptions arise which are "real world notable," they can be glossed at comic book death (e.g. Jean Grey, Superman).Zythe (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - This definitely needs restructuring at the very least. But AfD is not cleanup. There have been very poignant deaths in comics, some with long term repercussions, and particularly those which have been commented on in secondary sources. Barry Allen and Kara in Crisis on Infinite Earths, and Superman in Superman #75, come immediately to mind. No we shouldn't be listing the mass of merry go round deaths and resurrections. But we shouldn't be removing this topic altogether either. - jc37 17:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry, Kara, and Superman all came back to life, though. The article Comic book death can cover those notable deaths. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dead comic book characters discussion took place before DC's Blackest Night, Marvel's Chaos War, and then DC's New 52 reboot made comic book death more nebulous than ever before. Doczilla _STOMP! 19:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And per WP:SS, those (Barry, Kara, etc.) should be able to be spun off into a separate list page in the future, if wanted/needed. But at that point, some ruleslawyer will try to suggest that such a list could not exist per this afd. There should be no prejudice against such a list.

Also, it doesn't matter if the character eventually someday was brought back to life (not uncommon in fiction, especially in the sci-fi, fantasy, and horror genres), what is being discussed is the death of the character.

Otherwise, I entirely agree with what you just said : ) - jc37 19:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There might well be a case for a list of notable comic book deaths, spun out from the comic book death article, but that's not what this list is. This is a list of every character who is "currently" dead. It's a completely different thing. DoctorKubla (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the sheer volume of publication deaths, and their reversals, is highly notable in comics through aggregation. King Zeal 23:04, 28 January 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.124.35 (talk)

• Strong Keep. The list is sustainable, even if difficult. The main criteria for "death" is removal from publication with death being the cited as the cause. For example, Norman Osborn was revealed to have never died twenty years after he was last published as "dead". On the other hand, Katherine Kane "died" for only one issue and was immediately brought back. Per standard of the article, that is not sufficient. Likewise, hoaxes, all just a dream, clone, and alternate universe resolutions to the issue all count if the character was still removed from publication. The only real sketchy issue is when a character dies and comes back within the same storyline. In some cases (as in the aforementioned Kathy Kane), this violates the point of the article because her death did not remove her from publication. In the case of Booster Gold, he is an exception because although he was brought back within the same story via hoax, the writers have gone on record to state that his death was meant to be seen as permanent. And that's the difference. King Zeal 19:26, 28 January 2013
• Delete - There is a difference between this list and the parent article Comic book death (Though that article may be better titled Death as a trope in comic books, but that's a different issue). Death as a trope is notable, it's something that there are secondary sources on it. Up to and including what are solid examples of how the trope is applied.
  A list of "Comic book characters killed off to be retired from publication" isn't notable and can verge on trivial and/or OR. In the first instance, a number of characters have been introduced to be killed off or brought back for a one panel death scene. In the second, short of a secondary source, we're assuming that's the reason the character is being killed off. Even using the current title as a template lends itself to trivia and OR since a death scene is an assumed death - the intent of the writer could be the character is now a corpse, or it could be a feint. The difference isn't known until the writer finishes their story, if they finish it.
  One other thing nags at me - any criteria we put on the list related to the primary sourcing means that we as editors have to evaluate the inclusion. That is original research, and maybe worse, research by consensus.
  - J Greb (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any indication that what you stated is actually a problem? One-panel deaths, fake-outs, and ambiguities are left off the article, and when, added, are promptly removed. King Zeal 23:04, 28 January 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.124.35 (talk)

inclusion criteria (and removal from publication with death being the cited as the cause appear a good criterium) the sustainability concerns appear fixable. Cavarrone (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book characters do not get removed from publication upon death. Appearances can become less frequent, but not necessarily. Some actually show up more often after death (e.g., Anton Arcane) and not just in flashbacks or stories set before they died. That criterion does not work. Dead is not dead in comic books.

Besides, a fictional character is neither alive nor dead anyway. It never lived. We can only call it dead or alive from an in-universe perspective. We're supposed to write about fiction in present tense anyway. Each fictional character is both dead and alive because the stories where it lives exist just as much as the stories where it's dead. Other articles on "current" status of fictional characters get deleted, articles that don't have such nebulous topics where a character's current status can be alive in several versions of the story history but dead in numerous others. Doczilla _STOMP! 00:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That violates the spirit of "death" as meant by the article. "Death" in comics is a catch-all term that simply means "removal from publication in current status quo". It's not "death" in the sense of other media, but that's exactly what makes it so significant. Death is overused in comics to the point that the number of characters that have been through it disqualify it from any sort of meaning. However, it is nigh-impossible for NON-comics fans to keep track of who has died, is dead, and various. For example, if someone hasn't read an issue of Superman in more than 20 years, they will have no idea that Maxima, Jean Grey, or Nova are currently out of publication; two o them having been so for close to or over a decade. This list is an easy fix to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Zeal (talk • contribs)

I don't understand. What do Jean Grey and Nova (comics) have to do with Superman? Superman is a DC comic. Jean Grey and Nova (whichever Nova you are referring to) are Marvel comics characters. They wouldn't normally appear in the same comic book with Superman anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Not so much so as to whether it can be maintained, but whether you bother to try and maintain it. It is a useful list; if a character is "dead" in some versions but "alive" in some others, then just add a simple hat note as to which version he's "alive" or "dead" in. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, "not useful" and "unsustainable" are not convincing arguments for a deletion, and never were. As we have clear and not confusing inclusion criteria (and removal from publication with death being the cited as the cause appear a good criterium) the sustainability concerns appear fixable. Cavarrone (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. As these are fictional characters, "death" does not have the same permanence or definitiveness as the death real-life actual individuals. Nornan Osborn is dead in the Spider-Man films, but not in the Marvel Universe stories, and I have no idea what his status is in stories set in the Ultimate Marvel imprint. Furthermore, fiction does not have to follow a linear progression of time. There are key characters from Watchmen that die during that series, but as of right now DC is publishing Before Watchmen, a set of prequel miniseries where those characters are portrayed as living. I can't see the encyclopedic value of maintaining such a list. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair to count dead film characters here (considering the Marvel Cinematic Universe has absolutely no relation to the actual comic series it is only inspired upon.) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was more the first analogy that popped into my mind. In any event, the fictional character Norman Osborn is neither dead and not dead, for he is a fictional character. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The policy-based reasoning here is WP:NOTPLOT. Should we have a list of dead comic book characters? No more than we should have a list of television characters that have sneezed. The list is essentially WP:NOTDIR, and seems to fall under #7 applied to lists, i.e. List of X that Y, list of comic book characters that died. The topic is adequately covered, with notable instances, in comic book death. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possibly, possibly something that could be used as a tightly-defined and well-patrolled category, but not a list. Probably the only comic book characters for whom being dead is intristic to their characterisation are Uncle Ben and Deadman. Everybody else uses their Mortality Deferment Cards with dizzying speed. SOME DON'T EVEN TAKE THE TIME TO STICK AROUND FOR TEA. HEATHENS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep citing similar reasons for why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dead comic book characters resulting in a keep. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason cited in the closing statement of that discussion does not apply here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 13:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but Rename information is sourceable, and at least a dozen or more instances are notable, and the inclusion criteria are definable. However, keeping track of who is "actually dead" is impossible, as none of them are "actually dead", just not being used by the companies currently (the only way a character could truly die is if the copyright holder barred their use and insisted the character be killed off, which even then could be reversed by them, and would expire in a century or so). What is true is that each of these characters has "died", whatever that means in comic land (see deadman, warlock, various robots, etc). so, rename to List of American comic book characters who have died. That way, the list never has items removed, just added, with reincarnations added as useful addenda when it happens. We could also limit the list to those characters covered by independent media, but thats too much to ask of the crufty articles on comics we have (yes, thats snark).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of American comic book characters who have died would be the exact equivalent of List of American comic book characters. All of them have died at some point. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify your "all', which I believe is a generalization. Take for example, the Watchers. Have they died? Same goes for Zatanna, Luke Cage, etc. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have all died and come back to life several times. For example, in Marvel Comics, the entire world has been destroyed and then restored several times, sometimes fixed through time travel. Eternity once destroyed the planet Earth and, instead of restoring it, created a duplicate Earth to replace it, leaving only Doctor Strange knowing that everybody around him was a copy. Between that and Marvel's "The Other" story, Peter Parker was already a copy of a copy even before his most recent death while mind-swapped with Dr. Octopus. Every single Marvel and DC character has died on other occasions as well. They die individually, they die in massacres, and they keep coming back. Except for a few who just haven't been around long and probably aren't notable yet, you can't name a Marvel or DC character who has never died. You just can't. Thanos killed half the universe with the Infinity Gauntlet, and soon he killed the remaining half of Earth's heroes. Korvac killed the Avengers and the Guardians of the Galaxy, then sacrificed himself resurrecting them. Cary Bates killed the Justice Society, then the Spectre brought them back to life. The Justice League died in the JLA "Obsidian Age" storyline. The examples can go on and on.

To address one of the specific examples in (Nonsensical Babble)'s question: Zatanna dies in Flashpoint, then get resurrected by the creation of the New 52. Doczilla _STOMP! 22:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a soft-redirect is in order! --Odie5533 (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:LISTN - it's clear that the notability of the list as a group is well established, as the numerous editors linking to Comic book death prove. As for the claims that it's against WP:NOTPLOT, they are moot; the policy requires that Wikipedia treats the significance and reception of the works, something that the comic book death article does in thorough and the list lead repeats in place. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:SPLIT, that encyclopedic coverage of the topic doesn't need to occur in just one page to comply with the plot requirements; the structuring of content should be what betters allows us to explain the topic. A main article describing the concept of comic book death and a separate list of characters affected by it seems a good structure, much better than the alternative to have everything on the same page.

It's clear that Wikipedia as a whole is providing the desired context for these characters, so a list of significant characters that are examples of the notable topic is compliant with WP:LISTPURP, WP:notability, and every kind of content that WP:NOT allows us to keep. I may agree to establish a more detailed inclusion criterion, but AfD is not cleanup - an slightly fuzzy criterion is no reason to delete the whole thing. Diego (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list is not a logical extension of comic book death. If it was – if the article was called "List of notable comic book deaths" – I'd probably argue for it to be kept. But what we're discussing is a list of currently dead comic book characters. The notability of such a list is not established, and making the inclusion criteria stricter wouldn't help, because the basic problem is that the inclusion criteria doesn't make sense. Characters in a work of fiction cannot be "currently" dead. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The sheer number of characters who have died in mainstream universes, elseworlds, and various other continuities is uncountable. How do you determine what should be listed in this? The entire article would reek of recentism, and other would end up being quite large if you were to list every death, and every death that was reversed. Not every character's death is notable enough to warrant inclusion, and those that do, seem to be already included in Comic book death. I personally feel that if such a listing is needed for dead characters, and resurrected characters, it would work better as a category. "Comic book characters who have died", "Comic book characters who have been resurrected", each split into DC, Marvel, Image, etc. Though, neither category or lists are a necessity. || Tako (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I made a backup of this article on wikialpha.org, for anyone who is interested. Mathewignash (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The prevalent opinion, as I am reading it, is that these pages should not continue as they are presently written. Discussions should be initiated on the respective talkpages as to repurposing or spliting them from their current forms. J04n(talk page) 14:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Congregational churches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

List of Anglican churches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

This article can never be what the title promises, because we are never going to accumulate a comprehensive list of all Congregationalist churches, even by state. It's really the agglomeration of US NRHP-listed church buildings along with British buildings similarly listed under their system. Categorization deals with this better; only think of how big List of Roman Catholic churches would be. The creator justified this as "useful" but that suggests that he can have this userfied if he really wants it for his own use. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I've added List of Anglican churches because this is even worse, as bad as the RC list for all practical purposes. There are thousands of Episcopal parishes in the US, South America, and Europe; The Church of England only knows how many there are in its domain, and Africa is likewise well-populated with churches. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of maintaining an accurate list of such parishes; parishes close constantly, and in Africa at least new parishes open constantly. We cannot maintain a worldwide directory of parishes, and at least of the US parishes probably no more than a quarter of them could support an article (due to NRHP listing of their buildings). Again, of the creator would like a copy in his userspace for his own purposes, that would be fine. But this article has no hope of recording what is promised, and if people are looking for directories of Anglican parishes, they should consult the various dioceses, not us. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note that Lists of Catholic churches does exist and has a quite different form. Mathsci (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was originally created as the quite impossible List of Catholic churches as well, but after multiple attempts I finally succeeded in getting that corrected to the current "Lists" instead, which is a different approach. Only the US subpage of that lists page is still a Doncram page, and seems overly ambitious (and also taken mainly from the NRHP point of view). Fram (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fram, yes, that was utterly weird of you previously to insist that List of Catholic churches was an invalid topic, and to delete it, and then yourself to create Lists of Catholic churches, rather than moving List of Catholic churches to that name and preserving the edit history. I don't care whether the top level list is named "Lists of ...." or "List of ...", but renaming is to be done by a move (perhaps best after a proper wp:RM Requested move discussion). I don't tremendously care about credit for having created the needed master list article in Wikipedia, but I did contribute something then by noting the need and stepping in to create the master list. It was weird that you deleted the article created and inserted yourself into the role of having credit for that. I thought about asking you to restore the edit history. Actually, here, let me do that: could you please restore the original edit history for the List of Catholic churches list article (i.e. where I created and developed it somewhat) before your edits revising it to have a different form. I never would have disputed that it needed to be split, but deleting the toplevel list was not right, it put you in the role of supplanting the original author and edit history. --doncram 12:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doncram, perhaps next time check your facts instead of making incorrect accusations: List of Catholic churches in the United States is the current title where it was moved to, history and all, it wasn't deleted; you edited that page afterwards, so you should have been aware of this. The "lists of" page is totally new, and contains no content you created, so there was hardly any need to have your name in there. You did not create a master list, you created a US list (of sorts) and presented it as a master list, which was rather misleading. Moving the page you created to the "lists of" title would have been ridiculous, as that didn't match the contents of that page at all. I see no reason to change anything here. Fram (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No incorrect accusation made. You did delete the main article, and you did usurp another editor's work in doing so. Again, I don't care terribly to have the fame forever of having identified the need for the main list, but it is utterly weird that you have taken action to remove its history, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright/crediting system for contributions. I do recall that I noticed you moved my work to the United States name. It is a silly technicality to hang your hat on, if you want to say you didn't delete the main article because you deleted it by moving it with nothing to be left behind. Again it would have been fine to call for a split at the article's talk page, or even to just go ahead and implement one, as obviously separate U.S. and British articles would be needed. Please don't make incorrect assertions of incorrect assertions. --doncram 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. A similar article of Doncram's is Jails and prisons listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That list has much tighter criteria for inclusion, though -- doesn't strike me as quite as problematic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about tightening the criteria for the above articles by moving them to List of Congregational church buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places and List of Anglican church buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places? That would involve removing the bit about notable congregations and focusing on buildings. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better: add some non-NRHP-listed ones. That is not an argument for deletion. I did in the past create a few lists of things on the NRHP, for various things, but I came around to seeing that more general lists are usually better (even if largely populated by NRHP-listed items, at their beginning). "List of historic jails and prisons" would be a better, broader list topic, allowing inclusion of jails that are listed merely on local historic registers and allowing historically important but eventually demolished jails. --doncram 12:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment from nominator: See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 4#Congregational churches categories for a related recategorization discussion. I would suggest here that the categories I propose would largely obviate making the NHRP list articles, though I wouldn't necessarily argue against creating them. Mangoe (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. Obviously valid Wikipedia topics. See wp:CLT for explanation of how categories, lists, and navigation templates are complementary. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of local Methodist churches for a recent AFD on another list of churches, which closed Keep. No policy-based argument suggests deletion would be valid. Of course there exist significant Congregational and Anglican churches in the world, and they can be listed, just as Methodist and Presbyterian and other churches can be listed. The NRHP-listed ones in the United States are obviously individidually notable, but there are many other U.S. and non-U.S. churches to be covered; renaming to include NRHP in the title would unnecessarily narrow the topic (and beg the creation of the more general list again immediately). --doncram 09:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As of the end of 2011, there were 6,736 parishes in the Episcopal Church [6]. I don't intend to list every single one here, and neither do you. Probably less than a quarter of them will ever have article because most parish buildings were built in the 1950s and '60s, and a lot of the older ones have been modified too much to allow for NRHP listing. Add England to this, and the scope of the problem shoots off the scale. The folks at 815 barely keep track of all parishes, and that mostly because the statistical office is obsessive. Mangoe (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every Wikipedia-notable one can eventually be listed. I fully intend to expand the list of U.S. ones to include every one documented to be notable by their being NRHP-listed (but have been delayed by confrontations now in arbitration). Likely eventual length of list is not a reason to delete it. The list will be split into List of Congregational churches in the United States and other sublists, as other church list-articles were split, and the top-level list will still be needed. --doncram 12:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's my observation here: this looks more like a worklist for you than anything practical. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As applied to England, there is already a list of CofE cathedrals here as part of a more general list. The current list of Anglican churches in England on the list under discussion only mentions cathedrals and is incomplete. The correct list breaks up the dependencies into two provinces, dependent on either Canterbury or York. I agree with Fram's idea of a structured "hierarchy" or "tree" of lists. That is what happens with Lists of cathedrals in the United Kingdom. In the UK there are too many old churches and chapels to form a list: categories are a much better idea. Mathsci (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, categories and lists are complementary: see wp:CLT for explanation. For one thing, the list can include redlinks of churches known to be notable (e.g. by their being NRHP-listed).

As was already done for various other denominations' list-articles, this list will obviously be split into List of Congregational churches in the United States and other geographic area sublists. The top-level lists, here "List of Congregational churches", are still needed. There's no reason suggested in any of the above discussion that is supportive of eliminating the top-level list. --doncram 12:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about Anglican churches here, i.e. Church of England. The trouble is that in England there are a huge number of Anglican churches or chapels that are listed. If the list was restricted to Anglican churches in the United States listed on the NRHP that would seem reasonable. But it would seem reasonable to exclude England. The category and sub-categories are already complicated enough, e.g. Category:Church of England churches, which is organized partially by county and partially by period. Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, you seem to have views and some knowledge about how the U.K. congregational Anglican (corrected) churches should be treated in this list-article or possibly in a split-out one that would be linked from this article. This seems not to be AFD-relevant. Could you comment at Talk:List of Congregational churches#U.K. section please, instead? --doncram 15:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already said in the post above (two weeks ago) that I was talking about List of Anglican churches. Mathsci (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, sorry. I am copying your comments instead to Talk:List of Anglican churches#U.K. section. Do let's please continue there, instead of here. --doncram 23:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were specific to this deletion discussion and the general scope of lists. Mathsci (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN, being the subject of extensive documentation and scholarship such as The First Congregational Churches. The claims that categories are a superior way of managing such information are both false and contrary to the guideline WP:CLN which states explicitly that, "the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists". Whether and how large lists are split and organised as a hierarchy is a matter of ordinary editing so that the edit history is preserved. Deletion is quite inappropriate and AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My concern is over the assumption that accurate lists, of manageable size, which people intend to maintain, can and will be created. I think all four of these points are in question. As far as the Anglican case is concerned, we can only maintain accurate lists by copying the diocesan lists and monitoring the latter to catch all the changes that occur, not to mention scraping up data elsewhere about parishes that are now closed. Whether such lists can be obtained for all dioceses is quite dubious. And the Anglicans are one of the better cases because ECUSA at least is compulsive about good records-keeping. I do not think we can or will maintain an accurate directory of Anglican parishes worldwide, and that's what we're promising to do here. And I don't think that appeals to eventualism are meaningful, because I don't think that eventually a comprehensive and accurate list will be completed. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-conformist churches are, by definition, fractious rather than uniform. An exhaustive and perfect directory of the sort you envisage is therefore impossible. This is unimportant because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not a directory and our disclaimers make it clear that we do not pretend to perfection or 100% reliability. This is why we are able to have lists of other items for which there is a long tail of uncertain size such as list of numbers, list of rivers, list of minor planets, &c. We implicitly concentrate upon the more notable examples and don't worry much about lesser ones. Warden (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one, repurpose the other. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete List of Congregational churches. My comments here are largely a repetition of comments I made on the article talk page back in December.

In essence, this is an indiscriminate list, in that it is not based on a clear religious categorization of local churches, but is largely a list of historic church buildings with "congregational" in the names listed in historic registers.  ::Congregationalism is not a well-defined religious group. Congregationalism has taken diverse forms theologically, with the result that not all churches that define themselves as "congregational" are affiliated with the same religious tradition (or even similar traditions). For example, several decades ago in the United States, the majority of Congregational churches affiliated with the United Church of Christ, so they are no longer considered to be Congregational churches. While the UCC is a very liberal mainstream Protestant denomination, some conservative churches in the U.S. still call themselves "congregational". The article Congregational churches lists two other denominational groups (besides the UCC) active in the U.S.: "the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches; and the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, an evangelical group". According to that same article, most Congregational churches in Canada affiliated with the United Church of Canada in the 1920s, but some churches rejected that denomination as too liberal and split off to become Congregational Christian Churches in Canada, described as "an evangelical, Protestant, Christian denomination". Because of this diversity, the population of "Congregational churches" potentially included in this list lacks the denominational unity expected of a list of (for example) Roman Catholic churches.

Furthermore, it appears that the scope of the list, as it currently exists, is largely defined as churches that include "congregational" in their names, which is not a particularly meaningful definition. I stated on the article talk page that it wasn't obvious to me what the scope of this list was supposed to be and asked "Am I correct in inferring that it includes any church that once used or currently uses 'congregational' in its name, regardless of theology, but does not include other churches that belong to Congregationalist denominations, but do not have the word 'congregational' in the article name?" The list creator's reply indicated to me that he didn't know much about Congregationalism ("Since the organized Congregational church merged into the United Church of Christ, there may be no current Congregational churches--I am not sure--or there may continue to exist some current Congregational churches somewhere"). He also said "The scope of the list as intended by me is to list all notable current and former Congregational churches" and acknowledged that was started as a list of churches with "congregational" in their names ("Obviously, in the U.S., churches listed on the National Register of Historic Places and having 'Congregational' in their name are likely to be Congregational churches, and I have been proceeding to list those first. It may turn out that a few of these were not in fact Congregational and a correction will have to be made. This is no big deal to make small corrections, it is part of the list-building and categorizing process.").

Human knowledge is not enhanced by the publication of a list of churches of diverse denominations that have "Congregational" in their names, particularly when the list may include churches of diverse religious affiliations and does not include other churches that were at one time Congregational but do not have that word in their names. Delete the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Repurpose List of Anglican churches as several articles. In principle, the scope of this article ought to be better defined than for the Congregational list, but the attempt to list all Anglican churches in the world on one page -- and the inclusion of many list entries for which the list provides no solid information (such as the 34 entries for churches named "Christ Episcopal Church") -- has created a meaningless hodgepodge. Some of the country-specific lists may be worth retaining, so I'm suggesting that the page be converted into multiple pages, each one clearly defined by geography and specific "Anglican" affiliation. I mention affiliation because the various split-off groups of continuing Anglicanism are still "Anglican" but are distinctly separate from mainstream Anglicanism. I suggest that the new individual lists be built in user space until they have meaningful content. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Both of these denominational groups are associated with characteristic (and contrasting) approaches to the design and decoration of church buildings. (See, for example, this leaflet.) Their denomination-specific approaches to ecclesiastical architecture are potentially interesting and important topics for encyclopedia articles (and do not appear to be covered in existing articles such as Church architecture and Sacred architecture). Articles about denominational architectural style could and should discuss illustrative examples of individual churches, and might include embedded lists of churches. Indiscriminate lists of individual churches are not, however, a meaningful contribution to the topic of ecclesiastical architecture. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck does that mean, "repurpose"? This is an AFD discussion. There is no argument here for deletion of the topic, which is obviously valid. --doncram 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These lists are better organised geographically, as has been done with the United Kingdom - e.g. List of places of worship in Tonbridge and Malling. For the United States, list by State, then split by county as appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As Mjroots notes, there are some impressive lists of UK lists of places of worship in wikipedia. A similar approach might be interesting for some parts of the United States, but there also could be merit in "by denomination" articles or lists. I think that the religious diversity of the United States creates some denomination-specific patterns that also form potential article topics. I just don't see that these lists have that kind of merit. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These comments have nothing to do with the topic of the AFD, whether the world-wide main list is a valid topic. Obviously the world-level list needs to exist. Splits by geography obviously also will be needed, but discussion should be at the Talk page of the article, and such comments are not AFD-relevant. --doncram 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to List of Congregational Church Buildings on National Register of Historic Places and purge out UK and otehr unrelated material. That list is based on a robust criterion for inclusion. Since the amalgamation leadign to United Reformed Church in UK, the only congregational churches are a few that stood out of that merger. A List of Listed United Reformed Church Buildings in the United Kingdom might be a legitiamte article, and could be included in a parent category, since many would have been Congregational Churches before the merger, but the UK content in the list shows no sign of having any such criterion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, you seem to have views and some knowledge about how the U.K. Congregational/United Reformed churches should be treated in this list-article or possibly in a split-out one that would be linked from this article. The 7 U.K. ones currently listed in the article are all those in a category of U.K. congregational churches. Could you comment at Talk:List of Congregational churches#U.K. section please, instead? --doncram 15:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears to me that there are similar issues for the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. In all three of these countries, Congregationalism has been an important religious tradition historically (tracing to the English Puritans), but the majority of what were once Congregational churches have joined with other denominations to form a new "United" denomination that is not strictly Congregational. Specifically, these are the United Reformed Church in the UK, the United Church of Canada, and the United Church of Christ in the US. In all of these countries, some Congregational congregations did not join the "United" denomination and are now affiliated with the Congregational Federation (in the UK), Congregational Christian Churches in Canada, National Association of Congregational Christian Churches (in the US), or Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (in the US). Also, some new churches have joined these last four denominations (which I have collected called "Congregational Christian", a term that may be inaccurate) since the United churches were created. In the US, and apparently (based on this list) also in the UK, many former Congregational churches have retained the word "Congregational" in their names after joining the new "United" denomination. A problem with this list is that it lumps all of these different churches together in a single category, ignoring the fact that most of the individual churches are no longer Congregational. This is wrong -- or, at best, misleading. (The list also is very incomplete, in that it omits many current or former Congregational churches that have articles, but that's not the subject of this comment.) There might be merit in creating lists of churches by denominational affiliation, but such lists should be carefully researched and documented to avoid offending the sensibilities of living people who belong to these churches by misrepresenting their religious affiliation. There might also be merit in listing church buildings that were built as Congregational churches (regardless of the current use of the building), for reasons that I outlined above, but such a list should not be misrepresented as a list of churches by denomination. --Orlady (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to delete Again, it is obvious that there have been a number of Congregational churches notable for being Congregational and for their building's architecture or for characteristics of their congregations or their ministers or whatever. These can and should be listed. The list-topic is valid. So what if there should also be a list of United Reform ones, etc. Yes it is not yet a comprehensive list. None of these are reasons to delete the topic, which is obviously valid. This is tiresome. --doncram 22:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Such a woefully incomplete list, as either of these is, is unuseful to people who come here for reference purposes, and if filled out to be comprehensive, would be unuseful because of its size both to people who come here for reference purposes and to people who want to list everything. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, what deletion reason do you suggest? You acknowledge that the topic is useful, but the implementation of the list is incomplete... Okay, so we accept the list-topic. The current version is incomplete, so we should expand the list, yes. We have to start somewhere. And we are doing so, for the U.S. section, by a starter list of the NRHP-listed ones, which are all surely Wikipedia-notable. --doncram 22:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaisano Capital Ozamiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete, shopping mall that ultimately fails GNG, no sources provided, I also strongly suspect this is a Sockpuppet account of User:Jeb2003 Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unreferenced article about a non-notable mall. Content similar to other articles created by a blocked editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unremarkable, non-notable mall without coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zepetto (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)

Company fails WP:ORG, many sources for its games but none for Zepetto itself. The intro is WP:CV of zepetto.com Dewritech (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zero references, zero indication of wp:notability. Looks self-written in biased promotional wording.North8000 (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Thibbs (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No improvements after being deleted under A7, no assertion of notability. hmssolent\Let's convene 02:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG.  Gong show 07:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CAMAH flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · flag Stats)

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

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

It is a flag of an organizational with dubious importance. The article about the origination was deleted twice: 1, 2 already. I nominated it for speedy deletion, however, the tag was removed by DGG[7]. If the article of the origination is deleted, its flag and the article about its leader (Piruz Dilanchi) should also be deleted. Tanhatanha (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 13. Snotbot  t • c »  09:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Persian Vandalism is one of the Persian chauvinism's anti South Azerbaijan jobs in Wikipedia. Group of Persian chauvinism attacks any article about South Azerbaijan, Iranian Kurdistan and Iranian Arabs. We ask the Wikipedia's administration to STOP this discrimination. Please! Aztap (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not notable. The sources are mainly to the South Azerbaijan National Liberation Movement's website, the organisation whose flag it is, so they can hardly be considered independent or providing any notability. Additionally, neither of the English language references provide any information at all about the flag, other than a picture (I can't read Azeri or whatever language the third source is in). Finally, there is the question of why we need an article on a flag of a non-notable organisation: to me that would require the flag to be of particular artistic/design importance (if Pablo Picasso designed a flag it would be notable no matter whose flag it was) or if its creation or history was interesting in some other way, but there is no evidence of that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete , Last time , the result of an AfD about an article with same name but different flag was to delete , this time same logic not only still exist , but also it is more clear that no such a flag exists out of imagination of the editors who created that ! Perhaps if I was going to search for a new gallery similar to previous one , the result would be more numerous ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saya Translation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I previously put a WP:PROD on this article with the rationale "No evidence that this company meets the notability guidelines.". The notice was removed without comment (along with the maintenance tags) without comment by the article creator. The concerns remain, so I am bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of wp:notability, zero wp:notability-suitable sources. Even by their own claim its a 2-person company,. 15:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nilai Sarda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason Chimpfunkz (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about someone of little to no importance, and appears to be written mostly by a single author. In addition, the articles this page links to do nothing more than restate results of public contests (and therefore are not the best evidence under the rules of best source/best evidence.) In fact, it seems to be an article that is strongly biased towards the subject in question. Furthermore, the person seems to have done nothing more than placed in a jeopardy tournament, and a previous national geographic spelling bee, which hardly warrants a biographical page. Past contestants in similar contests (including cross-winners) do not have page for themselves because their accomplishments do not warrant a page. For these reasons, I propose deleting this page.

• Belete it! Silly moms, Wikipedias are for notables! 75.170.173.91 (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC) — 75.170.173.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete No more notable than any of the other Teen Jeopardy contestants. 24.22.129.98 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete So we need to discuss this further? Purplesky91 (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing of value will be lost. Imaria Prime (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete --Zimbabweed (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notable??? MikeyMoose (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - See WP:ITSNOTABLE. Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article is about a low profile individual with a brief coverage on a single event. Delete according to WP:NTEMP Theothor32 (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Jussychoulex (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Non notable. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 00:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimin Bal (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 filmmaker with an article that is "sourced" only to his own personal page; promotional intent by COI editor (who appears to be the subject of the article) is clear. None of his listed film projects have been released (WP:CRYSTAL); notability is not inherited from being assistant director under bluelinked directors. gHits appear to be only social media and Wikimirrors; zero gNews hits; no relevant gBooks hits. WP:TOOSOON at best. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any evidence that this is a notable person. All of the sources in the article are clearly dependent on the subject. I searched for the person's name on Google, and the first 50 results are all either dependent on the subject (e.g. the the subject's personal Facebook and Google Plus user pages) or unrelated to the subject (e.g. pages about other people called Jaimin).

Also, since the article doesn't have an AfD template, I missed this discussion at first and thus corrected the title of the article. The article is now listed under the title Jaimin Bal. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has been repeatedly removing the AfD template. The article may need to be semiprotected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the AfD template and semi-protected the article, will continue to monitor. GiantSnowman 11:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I likewise can find zero mention of this person apart from their own postings on the internet. None of the alleged movies have been released. And no independent evidence of him having worked as an assistant director to either of the named individuals, although even if there were, it doesn't confer notability. I am beginning to wonder how much of this article is fantasy. I can find nothing on his parents although the article claims that his mother, Namita Bal, is "well-known politician", and his father, Swami Dibyananda Saraswati (speedy deleted) is "a successful business personality of Orissa and also a prominent philosopher of India." (Note also the contents of User:Swami dibyananda saraswati). Likewise, I can find no evidence of a company called (rather grandly) the Jaimin Bal Group, of which he is allegedly the chairman. He also claims to work as an adviser to the Self Realisation Mission in Orissa, which his father supposedly founded. The Mission appears to be an orphanage/adoption agency which had so little money in 2008 that another Indian charity provided them with a computer, baby clothes, food, etc. and had to teach them basic childcare. See here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - spectacularly fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanispampuffery. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the absence of independent reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looked at the article to begin with and saw several reference links. Ran WP:REFLINKS over it to generate titles and to unify the duplicate references as appropriate. Shocked to discover that there's only 2 distinct references. Both pointing at what appear to be WP:SELFREF class references. Looking back in the history, we see a article spring into existance with a COI template from 2011 on January 13th of this year. This tells me that the author simply won't accept their own COI and therefore this article must be SALT-ed. Hasteur (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The charitable thought is a lack of knowledge that you could have multiple cites going to the same refernece. The less charitable thought is an attempt at WP:BOMBARDMENT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the article creator attempted to remove the AfD template, and also cut-and-pasted the article contents to Jaimin bal wikipedia article which has been tagged for A10. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy DeleteThis article was created for self-promotion and self-publicity. Notability not observed. Poor references. Strongly recommend for deletion of this page. Jussychoulex (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable. "He is the oldest of his three sisters" LOL. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the Patriots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Self-published pamphlet by the prolific Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti). Included in the collections PROUT in a Nutshell that was at AfD recently (decision: redirect to Sarkar bio). Single citation of the book comes from another self-published book by a different author. No discussion in the scholarly or popular press. Recommend redirect to Sarkar bio. GaramondLethe 07:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect No reliable independent sources cited in the article, and I can't find any on Google/GNews/GBooks. Does not meet WP:NBOOK. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero indication of wp:notability, zero wp:notability-suitable references. North8000 (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: it's important to develope this article of an important indian phylosopher. Why to delete it?--Anta An (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Again, no notability - this is one of several such articles created recently, all with the same problems. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; short of notability. Lacking independent sources, it's impossible to build neutral content on topics like this. bobrayner (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It appears that some Sarkar admirers think that anything by Sarkar , even a minor pamphlet, should be listed separately to give it notability, even when there is no evidence to substantiate this.--Zananiri (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – fails WP:N, for a separate article the topic requires reliable third–party sources. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rumpus (band) (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 for 7 years(!) - fails WP:MUSIC. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a search for sources brought up nothing except this article and a copy of it at BBC Music. There are some hits for other bands called Rumpus, but not this one. No evidence of major album releases, let alone anything charting. Article had a PROD contested here in 2006 rather unconvincingly.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; fails WP:MUSIC and per Ritchie333's excellent rationale. —Theopolisme (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I found no coverage for what appears to just be a definition of an uncommon word. SL93 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NOTDICT: we already have an article on open-cast mining, and wikipedia articles are by concept/thing, not by word/name/term. I don't know if moving to Wiktionary is appropriate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The existing article was basically rubbish. I've rewritten and referenced it to show that it's a notable enough topic.  —SMALLJIM  00:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would go ahead and withdraw, but there is a delete. If the delete is changed, consider this withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:as part of WikiProject Mining I've been going through and working to organize the various techniques of mining pages, and indeed some will likely be merging and splitting where needed. However, this page is categorized under "Mining in Cornwall", which gives it an rather interesting status, as the Cornish Mining Tradition has many articles specific to its mines, miners, and techniques (much like those articles on the Harz region of Germany), even where they may fall under a larger technique, because it is a very notable and distinctive regional tradition that often differs from the rest of the world. As there is growing and increasing sourced content for this article, I'd say Keep for the time being, and if need be later MERGE it into the relevant article, rather than outright deletion. Morgan Riley (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revised: Strong keep: I've been working on building out the article on stoping (mining), and realized what exactly this article is. It's as it says: a type of near-vertical stoping, that often hits the surface. Its a form of underground mining that happens to break out into the surface, not a type of surface/open-pit mining. It's a specialized topic, yes, but from all I can tell, it is a very distinct topic.Morgan Riley (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PoBros, Inc. Video Games Company (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 and advertise-y article apparently created by one of the company founders. I can't see this article meeting the notability threshold. I don't immediately see any Google search results other than download sites, press releases, and social media sites; nothing to support notability (other than the two existing external links, which are about two of their games, rather than about the company itself). — Huntster (t @ c) 05:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I previously placed a G11 speedy delete on this page that was subsequently deleted by the page creator. The deletion rationale still stands - the page would require extensive work to rescue from being nearly entirely promotional, plus its notability is questionable and its creator may be one of the company's founders. If there's not a notability problem here there's certainly a COI issue. §everal⇒|Times 18:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ejection fraction. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Injection fraction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article about a medical topic appears to be original research. A Google search for "Injection fraction" leads to many misspellings and one PubMed reference to a journal article from 2003 which has no abstract. I checked with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Injection fraction and it appeared that the article was not part of mainstream medicine. Bad medical information can be dangerous. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect - seems to be a corruption of Ejection fraction. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I looked up the referenced article and its title is actually "Measuring ejection fraction with a MUGA scan", somehow its title is displayed wrongly on Pubmed. --WS (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's pure imagination. Injection fraction doesn't exist DocElisa ^✉ 10:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and change to Redirect to "Ejection fraction". The phrase does not exist. However I have heard medical students misuse the phrase a couple of times when they meant "ejection fraction". Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but what do you mean with "redirect to Ejection fraction"? Have you read the article? There is nothing to redirected. If a student spells badly a medical term he must be corrected.DocElisa ^✉ 14:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:R, one of the reasons for creating a redirect is "likely misspelling". I believe that this misspelling occurs often enough that it is worth having a redirect page. If the page is simply deleted and a reader searches for "injection fraction" they will only discover that there is no such page in Wikipedia. By adding a redirect, the reader is automatically sent to the article that they were probably looking for. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WP:R but the problem is: if the page stays as a redirect someone can again re-edit a false article. And we will have problems forever... we already have anyway. There are lots of errors and misspellings on web. More one reason to be careful with this situations. We can't forget the fact that the other WP are translating en:WP. Regards DocElisa ^✉ 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if the page stays as a redirect someone can again re-edit a false article - That can happen also if the page is deleted. Diego (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect per Ariconte/Axl. The creator's OR notwithstanding, this is a plausible misspelling. Hell, I've seen "injection fracture" for "ejection fraction". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect I found a few references to "injection fraction" in the literature but the two I investigated did look like injection was mistaken for ejection. I don't see anything salvageable in the article, so delete and redirect per Ariconte/Axl is best here. That this is a common misspelling is evident by the existence of the article and the redirect will help avoid article re-creation in the future --Mark viking (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect - nonsense and the one reference now shown to have been misspelt to support this new term.David Ruben ^Talk 00:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - likely misspelling. Diego (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no redirect. This is NOR from the very fertile mind of an editor who has been unable to provide any kind of sources despite being challenged repeatedly over years. JFW | T@lk 09:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - A7 by Dlohcierekim (non-admin close). Stalwart111 05:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Grasse (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 appears to have been created for recreation and has no reference, no content, and is a stub as well... Ajayupai95 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename. to Detroj-Rampura The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Detroj (tehsil) (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)

Duplicate of Detroj Kondi (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Rename. Articles are the same, with no meaningful history. Author may have meant to create Detroj (village) and Detroj (tehsil). According to local government sources [8], the tehsil is now known as Detroj-Rampura so will need a page move. Funny ^Pika! 16:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with User:FunnyPika. Title 'Detroj' should be used for the article on Detroj (village) and Detroj (tehsil) should be moved to Detroj-Rampura. --Kondi (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 05:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 19:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Donnelly (journalist) (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)

Neither his budding career as a reporter (he graduated college not too long ago, it would appear) or his Gaelic Football career seem to have garnered sufficient independent RS coverage to meet our notability requirements, from what I can find. Tagged for notability and as an orphan since 2011. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ATHLETE. a 2 year journalism career following completion of a degree is hardly noteworthy unless there is significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete amateur sportsman, young country reporter, not yet notable. The-Pope (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. 04:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete I support the delete camp's argument that the individual does not seem to meet WP:ANYBIO, either as an athlete or a journalist. In regards to the relisting, anyone may WP:RELIST if they feel consensus has not been adequately established, and not restricted to admins even in close calls. A relisting is different than a close. Mkdw^talk 05:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist just proves a uniamous delete, I see little value in the Relist. LibStar (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not seeing enough to confer notability either as a journalist or as a sports-person, nor enough for WP:ANYBIO. Stalwart111 06:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some day he might be Notable, but he is not right now. No awards or trophies cluttering up his room. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails GNG, ANYBIO and any other suitable SNG. Cavarrone (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This can now be SNOW-closed, if anyone wishes to do so. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why was this relisted exactly when it was already unanimous? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, Andrew. The answer is scattered. But you can find the discussion: a) on the page of the original re-lister (at the time when there were two !votes and the nom, here, b) at the AN/I filed concerning the fact that there was a re-list, here , which was followed by c) the original re-lister's decistion to revert his relisting, and d) in the edit summary of the second re-lister, here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federer–Hewitt rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article was already deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federer–Hewitt rivalry and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federer–Hewitt rivalry (2nd nomination). Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. These endless rivalry pages are getting a bit much. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. A rivalry article needs to show evidence of a rivalry existing beyond "they've played a lot" --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 04:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Previous consensus was deletion and this article is no different. Schenka (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per previous consensus this rivalry does not meet the notability requirement (although it comes close).--Wolbo (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTA Big Three (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, and too soon. Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. Maybe in a year or two this might mean something but these endless rivalry pages are getting a bit much. The Trivalry page was already deleted for the same thing, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trivalry. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Deletion A neologism which describes a phenomenon which doesn't really yet exist. If it was to become an article, it would need to be much less of a journal of a few player's careers, and much about the rivalry itself. Author may want to move it to a sub-page on his/her user page for preservation and improvement. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What I may consider doing is copying this page in its entirety to my Talk page, where it can be updated as the season progresses. But, as we saw last year, these three players played a high level of tennis that has set the standard across the WTA. I feel as if something special between these three will happen this year, such as sharing the Majors and the Premier titles, like we saw last year. A lot of players became victims of their dominance last year. Ana Ivanovic, for example, went 0-5 against these three players last year. Jelena Janković went 0-2, whilst Petra Kvitová and Sara Errani went 0-3 each (0-4 if you include their defeats against Radwańska at last year's year-end championships). (MasterMind5991 (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • UPDATE: I have copied the entire original article (as it is), onto my personal page: User:MasterMind5991/WTA Big Three. In the event that the original article gets deleted, work can continue on that page, but it should be updated regularly. (MasterMind5991 (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 04:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Deletion Not notable at this moment, thus the article is premature. This is an encyclopedia and we should not slavishly follow every new buzzword the media throws up to garner attention. A bit more distance and reflection is required. The same in essence applies to the ATP Big Four article. --Wolbo (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Putting this out of its misery after four relistings. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humanist Fellowship of Montreal (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)

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article does not establish notability. Possibly redirect to Humanist Canada, as it appears to have been a precursor of sorts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – There's an article about the group in The Gazette from 1968 which I've added as a source, and the group is discussed extensively in the book Morgentaler: a difficult hero : a biography by Catherine Dunphy, Random House of Canada, 1996 (which, as a sidenote, was nominated for a Governor General's Award). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]