Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 17

< 16 July	18 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry Laszlocser but the consensus is that they still do not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La Caffettiera Stioppeta[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. Only reference is not significant coverage. Google searches do not provide anything better. Disputed Prod. noq (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability has not been established for the article, the reference listed is an entry in a calendar of events, although I don't speak Hungarian so I don't know if it is a site that allows user submissions (and thus being a WP:SPS), but it is a very weak third-party source regardless, and as that it the only source, it is not enough to establish the notability of the article's subject. - SudoGhost ™ 01:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also tried searching under their Hungarian name (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) with somewhat more results but, alas, only trivial coverage, i.e. concert announcements. Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
link as proof of notability in German Online Newspaper (Hamburger Online)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Laszlocser (talk • contribs) 12:53, 22 July 2011

This article is a brief mention, and does not meet WP:GNG (significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject), and certainly does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. - SudoGhost 20:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, an extremely trivial mention. The article is about a completely different (and equally non-notable) youth choir and mentions that they were participating in some kind of cultural exchange involving two other youth choirs, one of which was La Caffettiera Stioppeta. It doesn't come close to meeting the requirements for significant coverage. Voceditenore (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG / WP:MUSICBIO (but sounds good). Stuartyeates (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DONE: rework of the references. DONE: Album cover was added. The international contest in Arrezo is internationally renowned. Not every choir is allowed to join, but only a number of preselected ones which must qualify. This choir has managed to qualify into the 13 finalists on a world wide basis http://www.polifonico.org/ User talk:Laszlocser 9:32 PM 23 July 2011 (UTC)
National Radio and the National Museum is also not meant for every choir. User talk:Laszlocser 9:32 PM 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Question: Which criteria of WP:MUSICBIO does it now fulfill in order to be an article on Wikipedia? It still doesn't meet #1, as all of the references still appear trivial. - Sudo Ghost 20:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nr. 12. The performance on 29.05.2005 at the Hungarian National Gallery was recorder by the National Radio as part of the Series "Hangverseny Délidőben"(=Concert at noon). The recording is avalible at the archive http://www.radio.hu/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=69&Itemid=124 and can be ordered here: http://www.radio.hu/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=59&Itemid=89 Order form: http://www.radio.hu/down/Megrendelolapok.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laszlocser (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 July 2011 User talk:Laszlocser 9:32 PM 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to fulfill Criteria #12 of WP:MUSICBIO. Being recorded and available for sale isn't the same thing as being the featured subject (not one of many) of a substantial broadcast segment. - Sudo Ghost 21:44, 23 July 2011 (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. If anybody comes up with anything else let me know and I'll be glad to userfy or incubate this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. M. Alauddin[edit]

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

Delete. Lightly Unreferenced biography, fails WP:ACADEMIC. Reads like a eulogy for a deceased colleague. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sounds like a fairly senior academic who was a full professor and department chair at the time he retired. I added some references that confirm his existence, although they are not primarily about him. This Google Scholar search shows a number of articles of which he was a joint author, although the most-frequently cited article was cited by 6 others. All but one were published in Bangladeshi journals. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. That he exists does not seem to be questioned, he does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, however. Writing articles is not a criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, as it is my understanding that most professors write articles about their field. - SudoGhost ™ 01:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks more likes a resume, than a biography,... recommends fix it,...
sorry,... nothing personal,... --Cpant23 (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?. Appears to have been prominent in Bangldesh. President of the Society of Otolaryngologists and Head Neck Surgeons of Bangladesh for 15 years. May meet WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This position does not seem to be verified by any sources. I admit that I'm not familiar with this field, but it seems odd that a person can be the president of so many things simultaneously. - SudoGhost ™ 03:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to their website, the Society of Otolaryngologists and Head Neck Surgeons of Bangladesh has about 36 members, so being elected President is not overwhelmingly prestigious. WWGB (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is an obituary, not an encyclopedia article. I'm sure he was a fine man and will be missed, but he does not seem to have the kind of notability needed for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Subject is not notable in Bangladesh, nor is the society of Otolaryngologists notable. (I'm from Bangladesh and can attest to the non notability of the subject in reference to Bangladeshi media or academia). --Ragib (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is it the leading national society in the profession? if so the society is notable and the head of it is as well. Or on what other basis of personal knowledge do you assert non-notability? There are many notable people and organizations in the US I've never heard of either. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this is any kind of definitive evidence against the notability of the organization, but according to the website's whois, the website didn't exist until October 2010. I may be reading it completely wrong (again, not my area of knowledge), but the website's About Us page seems to assert only inherit notability from doctors of established ENT departments (the very last paragraph seems to be the only one that addresses the "Society of Otolaryngologists & Head Neck Surgeons of Bangladesh" itself). But again, this is an observation from a person that knows next to nothing about the subject matter itself. - SudoGhost 00:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the English-lanaguage references are close to sufficient (and the single other one can't be by itself). The subject may be notable but not from searching google. The Society of Otolaryngologists is likely to be notable (but that's not the question here). Stuartyeates (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The About Us page at the society's English language website goes into extended, name-dropping detail about the history of ENT in Bangladesh - but Dr. M. Alauddin rates only a bare mention, as an enthusiast of head and neck surgery. In that section he is not mentioned at all in connection with the origin or administration of the society. The "executive" page does confirm that he was president from 1992 "till now"; apparently the site has not been updated since his death. So his long presidency is confirmed, but the history of the society barely mentions him. My opinion remains "delete". --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2011 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilma Pang[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable local politician in San Francisco. She might, in time, become notable but not yet - clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and IMHO WP:GNG as well despite one lurid event in her career. I tried to redirect the article to San Francisco mayoral election, 2011 but this was contested so here we are at AfD. I'd be happy with either a deletion or a redirect. andy (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC) andy (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable only for election scandal. BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or Redirect as suggested by Andy. (I would favor the redirect, that way the article can be recreated with its history intact if she becomes more notable later.) "Scandal" is too broad a word IMO, but the controversy over her campaign contributions was the only thing that garnered any press at all. That coverage amounted to one article in the San Francisco Chronicle, on which this page is largely based. Notability calls for significant coverage in MULTIPLE sources, which is not satisfied here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are bazillion sources, more than enough to meet WP:GNG. It does fail WP:POLITICIAN, but if it meets WP:GNG we don't even get to WP:POLITICIAN, which is only for those who fail GNG but are indeed notable under POLITICIAN. --Cerejota (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "bazillion sources" (actually 47, not all of them Reliable Sources) are mostly passing mentions - mostly in connection with her unsuccessful runs for office. They are not "significant" coverage as required for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If 47 sources spread over a period of years are not significant coverage, what is "significant coverage", then? The question is not rhetorical, the closing admin will have to answer it convincingly either way s/he closes. Certainly most of the press coverage is related to running for office, but htta is inmaterial, a person can meet GNG as a political figure while not meeting WP:POLITICIAN - which is the case of nearly all third party candidates in the USA, or with members of political fringe/extremist groups. However, looking only at news ignores other sources. I think in this case quantity acquires a quality of its own. --Cerejota (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as suggested above. I, too, mildly prefer the redirect. (For the record, the article creator, the nominator in the first Afd, and the IP opposing the redirect are the same sock. Go figure!) Location (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems no one bothered to click on the links to possible sources at the top of this page. This woman has been mentioned in various published books and has significant press from diverse sources including the Bay Area Reporter (multiple mentions), numerous and regular mention in the San Francisco Chronicle from 2004-present, Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Examiner, Asian Week (numerous mentions), San Jose Mercury News, Sierra Sun, KTVU San Francisco (Fox News), Fog City Journal (numerous mentions), and KGO San Francisco (ABC News). This is a notable topic on a subject with significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.148.90 (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — 184.164.148.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. andy (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has issues, including focus on a a small scale controversy rather than subject, but is not mostly known for the scandal - I support moving material of the scandal to the mayoral race article and link form that to this article. Plenty of academic and reliable news sources back notability as a musician, an academic, and an aspiring politician. She is certainly more notable than almost anyone in Pornographic film actors, with a fe notable (har-har) exceptions. This is an easy keep under WP:GNG, and there are multiple sources galore. AfD is not to fix quality issues. --Cerejota (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: fails WP:POLITICIAN, minimal WP:RS coverage, of very limited geographical scope (with some rather unreliable sources prominently cited in the article) does not suggest the WP:GNG is met. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you change your opinion if significant changes happen to the article? I agree that as it stands it is badly done for a BLP, but I think it warrants fixup, not deletion...--Cerejota (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the changes demonstrated "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then yes. If it were simply 'rearranging the deckchairs on a sinking ship', then no. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not how the article is written, it is notability. But if you can make her notability clearer by rewriting and adding references, go ahead. I will re-look at it with an open mind. --MelanieN (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the issue is notability, which is not expressed in the article, because I totally see it GNG. Am working on it.--Cerejota (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you do understand the issue, based upon edits to date. Student newspapers and internet television channels really don't cut it as sources for a BLP, nor does an apparent complete lack of coverage from beyond San Francisco. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to who ever started the IRC rumor I was a sock puppet of the article creator, check yer head. To begin with, I live in NYC, not the west coast, and am previously totally un-involved in this drama I just found out about. Also I have been around teh wikis for a very long time, generally well-behaved. And just because a puppet made it, don't mean it has no value or is not worth trying ARSing it.--Cerejota (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage of the ethics issues makes it notable for me. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but does it make it notable for wikipedia? It would help if you could relate this to guidelines. andy (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Read WP:POLITICIAN. She clearly meets it. In addition to that, she doesn't just get cover for her race for mayor. You see additional coverage as they quote her as an expert on Chinese related things. [1] [2] Dream Focus 09:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe YOU should read WP:POLITICIAN. It grants notability to:
*Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
*Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
*Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
*In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.[13]
Bottom line, she does NOT qualify under WP:POLITICIAN; however she might qualify under WP:GNG, if her press coverage is found to be significant enough. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." She meets that just fine. Dream Focus 22:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? That paragraph discusses "mayors of cities" and "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city". How does that apply to her? As far as I can tell she's never held any elected office anywhere. andy (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's actually a minor local political figure - not a major figure as in that policy - but the bottom line remains the requirement for "significant press coverage". That's not unique to WP:POLITICIAN - it's the requirement for any individual, per WP:BIO, unless a guideline like WP:POLITICIAN grants an exception (as for example a state legislator). --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that she meets WP:POLITICIAN, because she is not a major political figure, but a minor one. She does, however, meet WP:GNG for coverage in multiple reliable sources, and exceeds WP:BLP requirement on being notable for more than one event, as she is notable in a few fields and for more than one event, and WP:VANITY and WP:ADVERTISING in that uninvolved editors are making a good faith effort to bring the article to at least start quality. Her notability is marginal, but notability has long been understood to be a pass/fail not a grey area, and she is firmly in "pass" due to significant WP:RS coverage. Protestations in this regards sound to me like WP:IDONTKNOWIT than a serious examination of sources taken as a whole. THis is not a GA review, this in an AfD, and we do need a quality article, we need a notable one.--Cerejota (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you back to MelanieN's earlier comments about your "bazillion" reliable sources that prove GNG. They're not substantial, they're not all reliable, and they prove nothing. In fact, if that's all there is about her on the web then it actually shows that she's not notable! andy (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. It doesn't say elected political officials. You are major if you get ample coverage, not just the office you hold. You can be a political figure even if you don't run for any office at all. Dream Focus 17:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article for political figure [3] but it now redirects to politician which explains you don't have to be elected to be a politician. Dream Focus 17:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, but you said "significant press coverage". Please give some specific examples that add up to significance because I can't see them and neither can other editors. All we can see is a rather small number of rentaquotes, peripheral mentions and so on. andy (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And other editors do see the significant press coverage - and provided it. You see "peripheral mentions" and "rentaquotes", we see evidence of a notable person in a major metropolitan area with significant enough notability within one of the largest Mandarin- and Cantonese-speaking communities in the US. Tens of thousands of votes in at least one election, multiple quotes in the media on unrelated matters, significant mention in journals focusing on cultural work, all of these measure up to notability. I offer that not seeing her as notable is an indication of unconscious systemic bias at work - notability is relative to the topic and no one here claims that she is a world-wide leader in a field, so the notability is marginal. But notability is pass/fail, and she passes. --Cerejota (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, you have worked hard on this article trying to establish notability, and I promised to look at the revised article with an open mind. I have done so - but I'm afraid it still doesn't add up. The references are either not significantly about her, or they are from fringe/nonreliable/non-independent sources. (Example, the Guardsman, which is the college paper at the campus where she teaches.) She still has only one SIGNIFICANT article from a SIGNIFICANT source, namely. the SF Chronicle piece about her campaign funding. The requirement for significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources has not been met. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doh-Doh Island Adventures[edit]

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

No citations and nothing on google shows sources have given it coverage to be notable St8fan (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per lack of notable mentions. I could only find this Hasbro page and eBay/Amazon links on Google & Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Brandy Norwood songs[edit]

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

Unverified lists like this are massive copyright violations. Note how many of the references link to blogs (unreliable sources), and YouTube. Much of the information is speculated and not notable under WP:NSONGS. Any notable songs would have been mentioned in the discography of the artist and/or relevant pages. This page is nearly entirely constructed by searching ASCAP/BMI and listing all of the songs which come up. In reality this is not WP:V and not factual thus it does not have a place in an encyclopedia. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL. If a song has not been released, it cannot have gained notabillity, the main criterion being that of its position in the charts. The only exception would be bootlegs that have reached sufficient notoriety to have been extensively reported in the press. It's a shame to delete this because a lot of work has gone into it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – The article looks pretty good to me. I think if the unreliable sources were removed, the article would be able to hold itself up. If it can't be done, my vote will be changed to delete. ℥^nding·start 05:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article is sourced and absolutely similar to the list of unreleased Britney Spears songs or the list of unreleased Michael Jackson material, both of who are featured WP lists. Otherwise, those would have to be deleted, too???

The difference is that a lot of these are sourced from blogs. ℥^nding·start 20:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because those which are featured lists, use much better sourcing than the junk listed here. In fact the Britney and Michael Jackson list use biographies amongst various other published materials. This does not. WP:WAX. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a blog or publishing database is no source?

Keep looks good to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is just like the other unreleased songs list. Also everything is sourced. So relevancy. check. quality check. hence KEEP 85.181.123.168 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2011 (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.

Delete.

The result was complex, and clearly from the debate below will be polarising.

Starting first from the nomination:

Tarc's first sentence does not provide a clear policy-based reason for deletion.
However, he then raises the issue of general notability, and in expanding on that...
Finally refers to the biography of living person's policy.

The debate was marred by a large number of comments that did not address these issues, or made statements that called on facts not in evidence. This is really unfortunate. All deletion debates should be run as rational polite discussions where competing facts are presented collegially, those of living person's even more so.

Finally, to the content of this debate. (Please note that I'm totally ignoring any argument not based in policy, such as "we have these other articles.")

Speaking broadly, the keep argument was that there existed sufficient independent coverage of the article's subject to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Many of these arguments, however, fail to address any of the rebuttal points raised. Working up from the bottom to give a small sample:

"The guy has been all over the news lately."
"media outlets have covered him as a significant factor in her not unrealistic bid for president"
"it seems beyond question that he has [become notable]"

That these later comments failed to address the problems raised with these sources is sub-optimal. If you come late in the debate, make some effort to make it clear that you've absorbed previous arguments and respond to them. Otherwise the closing adminstrator may take less from your comment than you intended.

Speaking broadly again, the delete arguments focused much more specifically on the sources provided, and in doing so demonstrated that significant coverage on the article's subject independent of his wife did not appear to exist.

Finally, the Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people instructs us to pay "special attention to the principles of neutrality." This is also important when considering Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. Given the dearth of independent material on this article's subject I am deleting this article.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Bachmann[edit]

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

I've never been accused of beating around the bush, so let me say that what we have here is crystal-clearly following in the footsteps of Campaign for "santorum" neologism; editors are creating WP:BLP articles on marginally-notable people that they don't like, so that said article will become a platform from which to criticize the subject. Not a single thing this man has done on his own meets our general notability guideline. He is the spouse of a current presidential candidate. He is the head of a religious clinic that attracted some press for offering conversion therapy. If the only things you can say about a person is that a) they have a famous spouse, and b) there are ideological outcries over a service that his organization offers, then that doesn't comes within a mile of the WP:GNG. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. BLPs cannot be allowed to serve as a coatrack for perceived anti-gay religious groups. Tarc (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with Tarc's analysis. COI: I wrote this stub. The article is heavily sourced to Marcus Bachmann-specific mainstream media stories, for which there are many, meeting WP:V. The lack of a Marcus article causes WP:WEIGHT issues on wp:Michele Bachmann, particularly in regards to his Christian counseling clinic, and his family's farm. Michele's long article has enough Michele-related controversy that lumping in Marcus-related issues is not optimal. Michele Bachmann's strong campaign has made him the focus of attention as a possible First Gentleman--only increasing--which is why in the spirit of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is comprehensive we have a strong interest to explain to our readers this subject neutrally, without speculation. On the article's first day of creation it had 2,000 views, showing this need exists; I imagine today's hits will be much higher. --David Shankbone 00:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Tarc. Yes, Tarc, you may frame this. :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To augment my argument, let me quote the article itself: "During the early days of his wife's campaign for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, Bachmann stayed out of the spotlight." Hmm... WP:WIALPI? Check. WP:BLP1E? Probably. Jclemens (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Shankbone. Articles on spouses of presidential candidates are pretty standard here. We've even got one on the wife of novelty candidate Dennis Kucinich, and Bachmann's gotten a lot more support and attention than he. Gamaliel (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These may be useful links for those who wonder where this article is headed: Dan Savage July 12 2011 podcast, Dan Savage blog post entitled "Marcus Bachmann's Big Gay Problem", Slate article entitled "Dan Savage:Bully", and Slate article entitled "Read My Lisp". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DC, I think it's good that you found more mainstream media sources that address the subject in his own right, but I think that it's important that we avoid WP:SPECULATION and stick to verifiable facts for a BLP. --David Shankbone 01:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm glad we have this opportunity to work together again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So 'where this article is heading' is an attack on the subject's personal mannerisms and a series of evidence-free sneers that he's lying about his sexual orientation? Wonderful. Hope everyone who is voting 'keep' realizes what it is they are assisting. →Stani Stani 06:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Flawed nomination. The subject has received mainstream media coverage, which means that he surpasses the Notability criteria. Spouses of major presidential candidates do normally get their own wikipedia articles in cases where they are extensively covered by the media: See Hadassah Lieberman, Kitty Dukakis, Todd Palin, Cindy McCain, etc. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All these people listed actually won their parties nomination for president or vice-president. But we don't have an article on, say, Conrad Chisholm, just because his wife ran for her party's nomination. Rlendog (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation. Add Elizabeth Kucinich to the above list. Dennis did not win the nomination in either 2004 or 2008, yet she has a Wikipedia page because she has received media attention. Her article survived 3 AfD's. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How could I forget Callista Gingrich? Shame on me!! Victor Victoria (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, Gingrich's page contains no unflattering information and was probably written by her publicist. It is not fair to compare it with the Marcus Bachmann article. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, Callista's page was indeed likely created by somebody who is close to her, as it was created by an SPA account who has done no other edits -- but that's irrelevant. The community has accepted the page and to date has edited it 219 times. Positive or negative is also irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether the information is properly sourced and if the subject meets the notability criteria. Since both have been met, that's why I !voted for a speedy keep because the nomination is so flawed. The nomination is essentially an WP:IDONTLIKEIT because there is negative information on the page. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notablity might not be inherited, but Bachmann certainly has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sourcesSt8fan (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject will continue to be in the public spotlight so long as his wife is running for US president. I'm inclined to think that there hasn't been sufficient coverage yet to make meet the notability standard, but I strongly suspect that there will be more coverage in the near future and that it would put the article over the threshold. We could delete it now and recreate it in a week or a month, but I don't see how anyone benefits from exercise. So I suggest keeping the article now and thinking about deletion again in a couple of months. Will Beback talk 01:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to think the other way. Why should we keep an article on someone without adequate source material? Kevin (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are a dozen sources, so it's not exactly inadequately sourced. No material in the article is unsourced. In many respects this is article is significantly superior to a huge number of BLPs and other articles. But this discussions isn't purely about sources, just about notability. Will Beback talk 06:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes there is some mainstream media coverage, but nothing where he is covered in his own right. Kevin (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing where he is covered in his own right," eh? I guess you missed this 4-page Washington Post profile, and this Associated Press piece, and this from the Minnesota Post, as well as the numerous articles about his clinic and his alleged "barbarians" remark. --MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- His notability is demonstrably his own, not his wife's. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is covered in plenty of reliable sources, and (contrary to what Tarc says) not in merely a WP:INHERITED fashion. Deleting the article means we run the risk of coatracking the Michele Bachmann article as more and more of these stories about Marcus hit the national and international news. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think you've kinda jumped the gun here. This should have been discussed first before going straight to an AfD. There is pretty much only a single sentence in the article actually about the campaign. and the info in it not about the campaign can definitely be expanded with the sources out there. Silver seren^C 01:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bordering on strong. He's becoming the John Zaccaro of the 2012 campaign. There's a major piece on him and his business in today's New York Times, "Bachmann Husband's Counseling Center Raises Questions".[4] And that;s hardly the only coverage he's received, as a straightforward GNews search shows. There was a moderately lengthy profile in the Washington Post not two weeks ago.Michele Bachmann’s husband shares her strong conservative values. There's more than enough source material to write a solid article, and more than enough coverage to justify one -- in fact, it demands one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Predictably, the Dan Savage standard-bearers are out in early force. We all know exactly what is going on here; this article was created by Shankbone for the same reasons that Cirt created the one on the faux santorum neologism. Not one of these insipid keeps has addressed a single issue of why this was nominated; there is nothing notable about "Marcus Bachmann" the man. What mentions there are in reliable sources are either in connection to his famous wife (WP:NOTINHERITED or to his clinic that (quite obviously and understandably) has earned enmity from the gay rights crowd. I'm quite aware that 2012 is shaping up to be one of the nastiest, most bitter years in American politics. But try...please, try...just once to not make the Wikipedia another front in your personal crusades. Tarc (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how NOTINHERITED works. No one's making the argument that the subject is notable because his wife is notable. The subject is notable because he has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The coverage probably would not have come if his wife were not notable, but it is coverage all the same. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, I don't think it does your argument any favors to Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. There's no evidence anyone has any interest in using this article to attack the subject. As it is written, it is neutral, informative and reliably sourced, and I have no more to add to it. We are all committed to WP:ENC and it's a shame you disparage. --David Shankbone 01:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, David. Tarc has let his emotions get the better of him here. For the record, I disagree with Roscelese's statement that Marcus Bachmann has "received significant coverage" in RS. The majority of the source coverage is about his relationship with his wife and the controversy over his business practices. This has less to do with Marcus and more to do with his wife and business. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what she's trying to say is that: yes, Marcus is getting all this attention because he's married to Michelle, but the attention is now on him nonetheless. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good explanation of my position. Not every shady counselor gets national news coverage - this one happens to have got it because he has a notable wife whose campaign his shady counseling will affect, but it's still coverage of him, not of his wife. We don't decide that people are notable because of their relatives (ie. NOTINHERITED), but if reliable sources do so and consequently give them significant coverage, we go along with them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My emotions are just fine, sport, so kindly take your armchair psychoanalysis to someone who cares. AGF is not a suicide pact, and I will not give it where there is clear evidence of bad-faith editing. This article was created in bad faith. Those who are calling to keep it are acting in bad faith. Period. The "OMG RELIABLY SOURCED" argument is not the be all and end all of determining who gets a wikipedia article and who does not. When we have a case here where the man is only being talked about because of a famous relative, then we should consider not having an article. How many dozens or hundreds of conservative christians run these sorts of therapy clinics in the country? How many of them are married to a political candidate? Tarc (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's evidence that David Shankbone or anyone else is acting in bad faith, then present it in an RFC or to Arbcom, please don't sidetrack this discussion with irrelevant personal accusations. Gamaliel (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "OMG RELIABLY SOURCED" argument is not the be all and end all of determining who gets a wikipedia article and who does not.. You are absolutely wrong, Tarc. See Jimbo's statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Wikipedia is therefore supposed to have an article on anything and everything that is notable. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Vic, argumentam ad Jimboem doesn't carry a shred of credibility, so please don't waste my time with such nonsense. Your "you are absolutely wrong" pontification is demonstrably false, and I can point to many, many articles that I have had a hand in deleting as proof. Do we have an article about the woman fired from her job for having large breasts? No. Do we have an article on the reporter who suffered a mild aphasia episode live last year? No. Do we have an article on the JetBlue attendant who went on a tirade? No. Do we have an article on Daniel Brandt? No. Do we have an article on the time Barack Obama swatted a fly during an interview? No. This is an encyclopedia, not a vacuum cleaner. We choose what to chronicle and what to discard. every day. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, would you please take a step back or tone it down? You're the only one in this discussion on either side who is gnashing teeth, making the questioning of others' motivations your central argument and being uncivil. The rest of us are discussing it calmly. I also ask you to please do the same on Talk:Marcus Bachmann. Comments like these[5][6] aren't helpful. --David Shankbone 23:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silence, Shankbone. I will discuss the topic as I see fit. Your use of the Wikipedia to denigrate living people is far, far worse than me puncturing some thin-skinned egos. Stop wasting AfD space discussing me; discuss the topic. Tarc (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh--you're right and I apologize that your wild-eyed frothing distracted me. --David Shankbone 23:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that characterizing intense debate as 'wild-eyed frothing' is over the edge of civility, David. Care to strike? →Stani Stani 01:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion jumped over that edge a long time ago. Gamaliel (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of reliable sources about this guy. Keep it. -- Y not? 02:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator and WP:BLP concerns. Ripberger (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Qrsdogg. Clearly there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Meets WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HOTTIE. Voyager640 (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another coatrack article created in the heat of a political campaign. Another example of using Wikipedia's high Google ranking to knock your opponent. This article is #4 in a Google search for the subject's name, and its payload is the 'reparative therapy' allegation. Regardless of the subject's political orientation, sleazy practices, or deserved obloquy, Wikipedia should not be used as an attack dog. →Stani Stani 06:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to some section of Michele Bachmann. The search term is legitimate; this article is not. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michele Bachmann. Marcus has stayed out of the news for many years now. While I sincerely applaud the LGBT community for finally saying "we're sick and tired of this bullshit and we're not going to take it anymore", the collected sources on this subject say little to nothing about Marcus as a person, and are mostly about the reparative therapy controversy and the wacky political positions held by his wife. The potential for very serious BLP issues here outweighs any encyclopedic necessity, and until the time comes that we have good, comprehensive sources about Marcus and his life apart from his wife and her political positions, this article only serves to cause trouble. However, I can also envision a good article that talks about Marcus Bachmann and reparative therapy somewhere other than a BLP, for example in our articles on conversion therapy, the ex-gay movement, religion and homosexuality, or my personal favorite that has not yet been created, homophobia and the Republican Party. ("The Republican Party has engineered a strategy for winning close elections by attracting the votes of homophobes, in particular by attacking proposals to allow sexual minorities to serve openly in the armed forces and efforts to achieve marriage equality for same-sex couples."[7]) As it stands, our current article on Marcus Bachmann repeats what already appears in the family section of the Michele Bachmann article. With that said, there is simply no need for an article on her husband at this time. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the duplication of what appears in the article on Michele Bachmann - I actually see this as a positive thing. It means that we will be able to simply link this article and trim the content in the Michele Bachmann article to a short summary. Otherwise, we run the risk of making the Michele Bachmann article a coatrack for information about Marcus's shady practices as more and more stories about him hit the national and international news, whereas if he has his own article, we can keep the Michele article about Michele. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I advocate keeping this article because Mr Bachmann's business practices have received substantial third-party coverage. DS (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012. We might definitely want/need an article on Mr. Bachmann as time goes on, and I don't think it's a huge surprise (or necessarily evidence of malfeasance) that one was created. At the same time, Marcus Bachmann is in the news not only because of who he is married to, but because that person is running a seemingly credible campaign for the presidency—i.e., WP:BLP1E plays a partial role here. His past actions are causing controversy almost solely in one context relating to his wife's political career. As such, I think the general campaign article for Michele Bachmann is the appropriate place for information on Marcus, where we can discuss his impact on the campaign (merging to Michele Bachmann is also possible but I think much less desirable). I also agree with Veriditas that some of this story might be appropriate for discussion in articles like conversion therapy but I'm not sure about this. As others have pointed out, the possible BLP problems are very real and should be taken into account. More so than with other articles, I do not trust our ability to keep this article balanced and free from slander. Because I think avoiding harm is an important part of the spirit of our BLP policy and having a standalone article is significantly more problematic in that regard, because Mr. Bachmann remains a fairly marginal figure whose notability attaches almost exclusively to his wife's run for the presidency, and because we can give readers basically the exact same information by merging and leaving behind a redirect, I think it makes sense at this point to not have a full bio article. As I said that may change at some later date--or not--and obviously there is nothing permanent about a merge/redirect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if it weren't for his wife running for president noone would care about this guy. Roscelese has no right to malign this BLP by calling him "shady." He provides a valuable service by helping homosexuals overcome unwanted same-sex urges. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter "if it weren't for his wife running for president". Fact is, she *is* running for president, which has drawn attention to him as well. Attention completely unconnected to her campaign. 01:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The notion that the recent media attention Marcus Bachmann is receiving is "completely unconnected to her campaign" is, to my mind, just patently false. Bachmann announced her campaign officially, began rising in the polls, and then we had stories about things that Marcus Bachmann had been doing for years, but which had received very little attention prior to that. To me this fact goes to the heart of the matter when it comes to these kind of debates and our BLP policy in general.

I think it is a terrible idea to get in the habit of essentially saying "look, this one person is very notable, and now this other person associated with them is being covered in the context of the thing the actually notable person is doing, and there are clearly a number of news articles mentioning the not-really-notable associate, so we have to have a BLP." No, we don't. We can cover everything we need to about Marcus Bachmann in his wife's bio or her campaign article--easily--and that's exactly what we should do for now. For all we know, Michele Bachmann will drop out of the race and resign her seat in the House next week and all of this will be forgotten (to make an analogy that I hope gives some keep !voters pause, imagine if Christine O'Donnell had a husband who made it into the news repeatedly, for some relatively peripheral matter, during the month or so last year when Ms. O'Donnell dominated all news outlets and we then created a BLP on him, after which he retreated completely from the spotlight and we never heard from him again--would we be happy with the existence of that article today?). Alternatively, Bachmann will get the nomination in which case of course we will have an article on her husband. We don't know and the basic idea behind WP:CRYSTAL is also somewhat relevant here.

Mainly though, aspects of WP:BLP1E, WP:INHERITED, and WP:EVENT should be guiding our thinking, which to me means we should be cautious about having an article about a man whose name has only been known nationally for a matter of weeks, at best, almost solely because of one particular thing his wife is doing. To me one of the reasons BLP exists as a policy is to prevent creation of full-blown articles like this before that is warranted, which is to say at a point when we can cover all of the relevant information in articles that will not follow the person in question around for the rest of their lives. Also, since this is a threaded reply, I want to actively disassociate myself from the last sentence of Lionelt's comment, even though we are largely on the same side of this discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect/Merge: I favor either deleting this entry or merging it into a section of the entry on Michele Bachmann. I concur with the previous comment that, were it not for his wife running for president, he would not be the subject of a Wikipedia entry. While some of the spouses of other announced or prospective presidential candidates have entries, based on their former status as first ladies or (in the case of Todd Palin) first gentleman of a given state, Marcus Bachmann holds no such distinction. It seems that, factual or not, the only reason that an entry was created on him is to highlight his Christian counseling clinic and use the clinic's alleged practices and procedures regarding homosexuality as a round-about "gotcha"-type piece against his wife. SWMNPoliSciProject (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing crap. "federally-subsidized[4][5] farm". Is there any farm in the US that's not federally subsidized? Or in the EU for that matter? FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Worthy of FA/GA/DYK/RFAR and all that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is no-brainer. Calamitybrook (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect/Merge: The article is very bad, and there is simply not enough information out there to make a substantive article. If there is controversy over this guy's job (which seems to be the only thing notable about him), it is relevant solely to how it affect Bachman. The source in this article can be used in her article.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think this is a repairable, maintainable article, and people will want information on Marcus Bachmann. However, Rick Santorum's family members, some of whom have a tiny bit of independent notability, are tucked into Rick Santorum#Family. Everything about Marcus not related to his business's effect on the presidential campaign can similarly be merged into Michele Bachmann#Family.
I know this Keep !vote is swimming against the tide, at least in BLP's about those who espouse politically conservative positions. I believe with very minor tweaks, the POV of this article will be neutral. Conversion therapists Joseph Nicolosi and Richard A. Cohen already freestanding Wikipedia articles; Bachmann's business may have been less notable, but his political connections and mainstream media attention certainly make up the difference. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Presidential politics makes him notable. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable now. This is knee jerk deletionist barbarians at the gate and nothing more, and they should be disciplined per policy if applicable. Merrill Stubing (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - Done. The mere fact that the article is "headed in a direction" to include political facts that you don't like is a really poor excuse for deletion. Wnt (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, and if Mary were not the mother of Christ, nobody would care about her. I don't understand this argument. Sorry. This guy is the husband of a leading candidate for president. That's notable. It is long past the time to close this discussion. Calamitybrook (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet we can find thousands of sources discussing Mary that don't even mention her son (although the vast majority do). That's not the case here, though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources about Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, or Barbara Bush don't mention their famous husbands? All that we requires is that subjects are notable, not that they are independently notable. Will Beback talk 07:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We even have an article about Bill Clinton even though it was his wife who was President for 8 years (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Stanistani. Negativecharge (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator's argument sums it up well. Nothing this individual has done on his own meets our general notability guideline. He is newsworthy (and only so for those with a particular political agenda), but not encyclopedia-worthy. Peacock (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Michele Bachmann per nom and many others. This is another sad example of political manipulation of the encyclopedia. People who are voting keep simply because of their own political preferences need to step back and take a good look at what they are doing. If I were to vote with my own political preferences I'd be right there with you, but I simply don't want to run all over our basic principles to get my way politically in an American election.Griswaldo (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Could be easily and briefly summarized in the Michelle Bachmann article. No way this guy would have his own article if not for his wife. Therefore, let them bask in the soft glow of notability together. Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we follow your line of reasoning, all the first ladies of the United States (except for Hillary Clinton who became notable in her own right as a US Senator and then Secretary of State) should be merged into their husbands' articles. WP:NOTINHERITED applies to Wikipedia. If Marcus Bachmann inherited his notability outside Wikipedia, then he becomes notable in his own right within Wikipedia. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually did follow the line of reasoning, then you wouldn't have arrived at such a ridiculous "OMG all the first ladies lose their articles?!?" conclusion. The spouse of the President of the United States is notable in itself. Period. Full Stop. They take on a life of their own upon the spouse taking office, often taking on well-publicized causes and programs. If Michele somehow wins the presidency, Marcus qualifies for an article immediately, even if he never utters so much of a peep from now until inauguration day. At this time, however, his notability is derived completely and wholly from who he is married to. There is nothing more to this argument. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Dukakis, Ann Romney, Sarah Hildreth Butler, Chuck Hunt, Susan Roosevelt Weld, John Zaccaro, Todd Palin, Eleanor "Sis" Daley, Richard C. Blum. There are many articles on people who are famous chiefly for being married to politicians. Will Beback talk 01:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The spouses of governors are, like the spouses of presidents, inherently public figures. It's part of the job description. They do not suddenly become notable simply because their spouses run for president. Also, don't confuse gaining notability with piquing the interests of Wikipedia editors.Griswaldo (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And spouses of mayors and senators? People are notable when they're noted. If a subject gets enough coverage then they're notable regardless of who they married. Will Beback talk 01:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard C. Blum is notable on his own because of his career. Eleanor "Sis" Daley is notable because she was the matriarch of an infamous political dynasty in Chicago, not simply because she was some mayors wife. That leaves John Zaccaro as the only other non-Governor's spouse, and frankly I don't know what makes him notable. Do you want to start the AfD Will because I'll be right behind you. Oh and btw, have you ever heard of something called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you haven't I suggest that right now is the right time for you to read it.Griswaldo (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michelle Bachmann. Although the "Background" section is sourced, there is nothing there of the sort that couldn't be sourced for most Americans - no real sign of notbaility there. "Views" is similar, stating his religion and a dispute with a blogger. "Bachmann & Associates" gets close to notability, but seems to be discussing his clinic, not him. I would not particularly object if a sourced sentence or two from that section was merged into a subsection about him within the Michelle Bachmann article, however. So for now, basically we are left with him being the husband of a candidate for a party's presidential nomination, which could and of course should be stated in his wife's article. If Michelle Bachmann gets nominated, of course he will become notable enough for his own article. Or if he stops "stay[ing] out of the spotlight." But until then, a redirect seems most appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has become, perhaps just barely, sufficiently notable. So if you want to consider this a "weak keep," by all means. And we really could do without statements like "Those who are calling to keep it are acting in bad faith. Period." I'm not acting in bad faith and I think everybody is just expressing their opinion, whether any given editor agrees with it or not. Neutron (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- puzzling that one could take the view that the sources available on Bachmann do not add up to WP:GNG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for a year and see if anyone still cares about the guy once Bachmann is no longer running for the nomination. Either (a) she will win the GOP nomination in which case he will obviously be notable and nobody whatsoever will object to an article existing or (b) she will not win the GOP nomination and nobody whatsoever will care about this drummed up media frenzy. --B (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If a subject has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed notable, with only narrow exceptions. It doesn't matter why the coverage exists, only that it does. And it certainly does in this case, as the extensive list of references, many good sized articles from major newspapers, shows. Buddy432 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it is debatable that he correctly meets our notability guidelines, it should be also be pointed out that WP:GNG is merely a guideline for the bare minimum requirements of inclusion. As such it does not create an imperative for inclusion, though unfortunately there seem to be editors here who treat it that way. As such it also does not trump policies like WP:BLP.Griswaldo (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to that point. Additionally, it is argued (and I think persuasively) that these sources aren't independent of the subject (Ms. Bachman).LedRush (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this source, as an example, not entirely about Marcus? It has a very brief half sentence at the beginning that clarifies who he's married to and the entire rest is about Marcus and just Marcus. It's titled "The Education of Marcus Bachmann", for goodness sake. Silver seren^C 01:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In how many reliable sources can you find coverage of Stephen Slater, Al Gore III, or Debrahlee Lorenzana? Where are their articles? Oh. Nowhere? I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but the article rescue squad's Holy Grail of article retention, WP:RS is not the sole arbiter of article-worthiness. Tarc (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Slater's article was made into an article about the event, because it was the event that was important, he was just the one that created it. Al Gore the III was largely just a BLP1E about his criminal activities and the sources showed that. Debrahlee as well. Marcus Bachmann, on the other hand, has a number of sources discussing him and specifically him, not in the context of an event (unless you consider owning the therapy place as an event). He has sources discussing him for a variety of reasons and various things. So he's not an event like those other people were. Silver seren^C 02:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me this is one of the biggest problems when it comes to interpreting BLP1E as a guideline. The "event" in question need not, and in this case should not, be thought of in terms of very specific, discreet occurrences (Marcus Bachmann started a clinic, Marcus Bachmann said something controversial, Marcus Bachmann commented on his wife's political career). Rather the "event" in question can be a bit broader as I think it is here: Michele Bachmann is running for the presidency and is drawing a lot of attention, i.e. this is the event. Were that not occurring, something close to none of the coverage of her husband would ever have existed. "Events" don't just last for a few hours, they can go on for quite some time--imagine a horrible crime and ensuing trial, media coverage, etc. as an obvious example--and thus the part of BLP1E that says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them" absolutely applies here.

Marcus Bachmann is someone who has stayed out of the spotlight, as others have pointed out and the article text acknowledges. I actually hail from Minnesota originally (the following is obviously just anecdotal) and a number of my politico nerd (that's a compliment!) type friends from there are very familiar with Michele but knew basically nothing about Marcus until the last couple weeks or so. Neither did I and I've known about the congresswoman since a bit before she was first elected to the House. Now that he has attained some "notoriety," so to speak, of course more stories are coming out. But little to none of it is outside the context of his wife's campaign. I think a major point of our BLP policy, which some people admittedly do not like, is to avoid having these kind of articles, and if we redirect for now and merge any relevant information it will be very easy to recreate this if and when that's warranted, which it very well might be.

I just don't understand the objection to that option when we think in terms of balancing our desire to inform readers with our desire to hold to our core BLP policies which, it should be clear, are not negotiable—both of them are served by retaining information but not a full article, again just for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the hypothetical trial that you mentioned, that would fall under WP:PERP and the perpetrator of the crime could be notable, depending on whether they meet the guidelines. Furthermore, one of the main reasons that help in supporting a separate article is information about the subject that is not information about the crime. For Marcus Bachmann, we have that, for example the link I gave above. We have a significant amount of information about him outside of his wife's campaign. The fact that the campaign instigated this information being published is irrelevant, all that matters is the information itself and the fact that he is covered in detail by highly reliable sources. To continue the hypothetical example, this would be the same for the perpetrator. The action of committing the crime would instigate press about it. If the press included extensive information about his life outside of the crime, then he would quality for notability in a separate article under the guidelines for such a subject. Marcus Bachmann has information about him in sources that is not about his actions in the campaign, which is what we need for notability. And we have that. Silver seren^C 04:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a pretty long comment about how to think about WP:EVENT in a general sense. I'm not really interested in your reply to my parenthetical and explicitly "imagined" point--which, I know, is covered by the guideline WP:PERP--because it is a pretty textbook example of cherry picking on your part. I'd be far more interested in a response from you that speaks directly to the last paragraph I wrote, i.e. being real about the heart of the matter. Why do we need/want an article about this fellow when we can redirect and merge for now, and then figure it all out later? Why is that not a good point to reach in terms of consensus, which is of course our objective in this discussion? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ecYou mean the article that has a picture of them together, with the caption which starts "Representative Michele Bachmann and her husband", showing them at a campaign stop, and which implicitly explains in the first sentence why anyone cares about all this stuff? Hmmm...let me think...LedRush (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean how it specifically states in the first sentence his relationship that you would know about? Yes. News articles do that all the time. Even if they're discussing a person for their own notable actions, they will still mention their relation to other notable people so that you understand who they are. That's a press thing, it has nothing to do with the coverage. Silver seren^C 02:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the guy seems to be notable as the husband and an adviser to a prominent politician. The article is an obvious magnet for PR manipulations but I think strict enforcement of the WP:BLP is enough, no need for the nuclear option here Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A link to a thread on Free Republic was recently posted on Wikipedia Review here asking for people on Free Republic to come and influence the article. Please be on the lookout for possible single purpose accounts and IP addresses commenting in this AfD. I just wanted to let everyone know about that. Thanks. Silver seren^C 04:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the article on his wife, per nominator's rationale. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr. Bachmann gets coverage on his own, they quoting him about his clinic. [8] Dream Focus 08:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who gets quoted in a newspaper article meets notability guidelines? Rlendog (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you bother to read the article you'll see they give him ample coverage. They don't just passively mention him, but talk to him, and have what he said. Dream Focus 00:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this smacks as being part of a smear campaign. In particular, the views section is terribly biased and appears designed just to discredit him. This article is an embarrassment to our credibility and shows that we have no class in how we present contentious political subjects. Perhaps he should get a passing mention in his wife's article, with the deleted article redirecting to that one, but being the wife of a presidential candidate doesn't evidence notability in itself. And being the butt of jokes on the blogosphere isn't evidence of notability either. "Just barely notable" isn't good enough for a contentious BLP. If this is kept it would need a wholesale rewrite, top to bottom. Them From Space 10:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and WPSHOULDNOTBEACAMPAINTOOL — Ched : ? 12:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - redirect to the article about his wife - this type of article creation is exactly what the upcoming arbitration is hopefully going to lay out guidelines to stop. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG (significant coverage in reliable sources). If you don't like the current balance, improve the article, don't delete it. And if you don't like the balance in reliable sources, that's too bad. I don't like a lot of things, but that does not mean I get to delete the corresponding articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLP1E. If he wasn't married to MB (the 1E), he would not be in the news at all. Smatprt (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the the article on Michele Bachmann, as we often do for barely notable family members of a subject. Jonathunder (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sources are about him, there is no doubt about that. On the other hand, the sources most likely would not have written about him if his wife wasn't trying to become President. It's not our job, however, to judge why reliable sources cover a subject and even if we can assume why they do so, we still cannot let the reason for the coverage influence the fact that there is sufficient coverage. If it turns out later that his notability was strictly temporary, we can still delete it then but currently the article meets the relevant notability guideline, so there is no reason to delete it. If some editors want to use it for personal agendas, then it's our job to stop them and strive for a NPOV article but such (perceived) agendas are not a reason to delete an article. Regards So Why 17:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well first I would say that, per the BLP policy and particularly BLP1E, it can very much be our job to judge why reliable sources cover a subject. If they do so largely or exclusively in the context of a single event, as I think is the case here, we generally do not have an article about them. But let's kind of leave that to the side. Given your thinking on this and that you are a bit "weak" in your keep position, I'm wondering if you would object to a redirect/merge. This is basically your "we can delete it later" point inverted, which is to say that we can merge relevant info and redirect for now and then recreate a full article later if and when that is warranted. To me it makes far more sense to hold off on creating a BLP that, I think everyone agrees, is going to be a magnet for defamation until we are sure the person is notable beyond what many of us think is a single-event context. To me such an approach makes sense as a sort of compromise position, not just for this article but for similar BLPs as well. The reader will still get most or all of the relevant information if they type "Marcus Bachmann" into the search box, so there's little or nothing of value that is lost content wise and we basically get to sit back and see whether his notability becomes stronger over time, or whether he quickly fades into obscurity because his wife drops out of the race in three months. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know that the media covers him mostly because he is the husband of a presidential hopeful but the coverage is not related to his wife's presidential ambitions, so redirecting/merging it to the article about her campaign is not correct and would only make it more confusing. As such, I'm uncomfortable to apply BLP1E/ONEEVENT to this case. He is not notable for one event (i.e. his wife's presidential campaign) but instead is notable because of what he did and the aforementioned event only served as a catalyst to trigger the coverage. So yes, why sources cover him might be relevant but only when the coverage is related to the reason of the coverage. In this case, it's not, so our guideline to determine his notability and thus whether his article should be deleted is WP:BIO and I think the amount of coverage does indeed satisfy those requirements. The prefix "weak" in this case was meant to indicate that I think the coverage, while sufficient, is (as previously pointed out) possibly temporary. Since we cannot see into the future though, we have to judge it by today's facts and those facts say he meets the relevant guideline. The same context applies to my "we can still delete it then" comment, since Wikipedia is based on the principle of being able to fix things as the facts change and if they change, then deletion might be warranted. As such, I don't think redirecting/merging is the correct way to handle this at this point in time, although it might be the correct solution iff facts change. In that case though, there still is no valid target to redirect/merge to, since the target would have to be coverage on the reasons that make him notable, not the reasons that make his wife notable. Regards So Why 10:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep The arguments that "if he weren't married to Michele, and she weren't running for president, etc, nobody would know who he was" are not valid. The fact is he is married to Michele Bachmann, and so he's made his way in to the news. After that, history has run his course, an the end result is that he has become notable in his own right, is discussed in his own right, has garnered attention from the public through his own actions, and at this point is noteworthy enough for his own article. The "If such-and-such hadn't happened, then so-and-so wouldn't be notable" argument simply isn't valid. If the Big Bang hadn't happened (or God hadn't created the world, whatever; not trying to step on toes, just make a point), then nothing on Wikipedia would be notable. We base our decisions on notability on what did happen, not what could have happened. TDiNardo (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, As stated above. --В и к и в и н д T a L k 18:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is only notable for Wikipedia purposes because of his wife. I fear that keeping it will serve only as a WP:COATRACK for Bachmann-bashing. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has been pointed out many times now, Marcus Bachmann has been the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources which are independent of the subject. There's not much more to say beyond that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I made this point over on Jimbo's talk page and I'd like to repeat it here: I think it's important we have a Marcus article because, for the first time in our country's history, we have a contender for the Presidency who has stated she is Biblically commanded to be submissive to her husband.[9][10][11] The role he would play in her administration is not insignificant, so IMHO neither are his views, his work and his background. We owe it to our readers to explain him neutrally. Marcus's article is receiving over 3,000 hits a day; by comparison, Jimmy Wales receives about 1000 and Elizabeth Kucinich, wife of Dennis, who has done nothing notable, receives around 100. --David Shankbone 00:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for, finally, after much prodding, clearly stating that you created this article because of your personally-held views rather than for any reason of simple Wikipedia notability. As agenda-driven BLP-editing is becoming more and more problematic in the project, this sort of frank admission will be useful if this matter ever goes to RfC or ArtbCom. Tarc (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever stop being a jerk, Tarc? I mean, really. Silver seren^C 00:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A jerk? I think he's calling a spade a spade after the spade said, "Hey look at me I'm a spade." There already is an arbcom case in the works, in the wake of the Cirt RfC which is aiming to deal with these issues broadly speaking. It looks like this example is fair game, with the exception that editorial misconduct wont be looked at. In other words Shankbone wont get dragged into it, but this article will.Griswaldo (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't excuse Tarc from attacking multiple editors throughout this entire AfD. As I said on Jimbo's talk page, "See here for one example and here for accusations of "personal crusades". And i'm surprised you don't remember him being condescending toward you, Viriditas, right here. If you consider "raising legitimate concerns" to be insulting and denigrating other users, then sure, he was raising legitimate concerns, he was raising them all over that AfD." Silver seren^C 00:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. His behavior is rather rude. [12] Dream Focus 00:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I regularly invite people to follow the appropriate avenues such as WP:WQA if they truly have a beef with something I have said, yet many decline to do so. They...or in this case, you...choose instead to load up the buckshot and fire random blasts in the course of discussions such as this. At some point I usually call them out on this...a "put up or shut up" moment...where they invariably choose the latter. As for this specific tangent, our esteemed Mr. Shankbone baldly stated that he feels the article's is important because of the extreme conservative positions of the subject; I quote "it's important we have a Marcus article because...we have a contender for the Presidency who has stated she is Biblically commanded to be submissive to her husband." Call me crazy, but I don't think we have a notability guideline along the lines of WP:BIBLICALLYSUBMISSIVE. Shankbone has created this article because he thinks it is important that the public knows The Truth(tm) about the Bachmanns. That is not honest or good-faith editing, and I happily call out an "I told ya so", because that is precisely what I said in my nomination. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Shankbone meant was that, much like people originally thought about Hillary Clinton (but which is clearly not true with her strong personality), because Michele has stated that she will be deferring to her husband, if she achieves the presidency, then it will actually be Marcus running everything from behind the scenes. Thus, this means that he is just as important to her nomination as she is to it herself. Silver seren^C 00:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc: What does any of that have to do with the fact that this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (i.e. notability)? Can we please stay focused on the issue? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, you have assumed bad faith about my motivations from the get-go, so it's not a surprise that you take the worst possible interpretation of what I wrote. Marcus Bachmann has received enough coverage in his own right for multiple issues (farm, clinic, and views on homosexuality). I have made no judgment on his views and background, but those views and his background are pertinent to Republican primary voters now and our readers in general. This is our purpose, to educate. Outside of your head, these aren't controversial statements, nor do they hint at a nefarious effort to tar Mr. Bachmann. You have failed to provide, after multiple requests, one slur, one biased edit or one factual inaccuracy with what I wrote. --David Shankbone 01:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Tarc's approach here, so I'm leaving that to the side and responding to David's comment above. There he said "The role he would play in her administration is not insignificant..." (emphasis added). Yes, you are almost certainly right that Marcus would play a key role in her administration, perhaps much more so than other First Spouses. But here's the thing: Michele Bachmann doesn't have an administration. She isn't close to having one, she isn't even close to having the nomination, and any astute political observer knows that the odds of Bachmann becoming the GOP nominee, much less president, are pretty small, because frankly she is pretty far outside the political mainstream and tons of Republicans who might like her perceive her as unelectable and therefore won't vote for her. What you are doing is the worst kind of crystal-balling David because it involves a BLP. You are basically saying "if Michele Bachmann became president this guy will be important, so we need an article." That isn't how it works. Marcus Bachmann will likely never be anything more notable than the husband of a well-known member of congress. That's it. So, for now, we can have a redirect for his name and include a good amount of information on him in his wife's article, and a pretty detailed section on his controversial views in her campaign article. I've put this question to a couple of others in the keep camp without reply so far but I'll ask again--what is wrong with merging and redirecting for now and then seeing what happens later? How is that a disservice to the 3,000 readers who come to the article? It clearly helps us in terms of holding to our BLP policies and keeps our options open for the future, so why not just do that?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shankbone, you have passed judgement on Bachmann just by creating the article in the first place. The slur lies in its very existence, And your purpose is not to educate but to proselytize. In a way, you're quite alike. Perhaps we should encourage Mr. Bachmann to become a Wikipedia article, perhaps he could write an article about you. Oh. Wait. Tarc (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus effing christ Tarc. What in god's name does the endless and very crappy discussion surrounding David's article have to do with what we are talking about here? Nothing, and you damn well know it. You're just taking pot shots now, I have to assume just because you feel like it. It's stupid and is probably actively hurting the cause of getting this article dealt with because people are going to be turned off by childish jabs. I don't really care that you can be a bit irascible and sometimes like to swear and shit like that, but you're pretty far over the line at this point in terms of maintaining at least a pretense of basic civility. You might want to step back from this for a bit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per nom. Even if this article were to be cleaned up Marcus falls pretty shy of GNG, I would be very surprised if any editor could find me news coverage of Marcus that did not also write about Michelle. - Haymaker (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Other than the first line where it mentions who he is married to, it is entirely about Marcus. Silver seren^C 01:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You basically made Haymaker's point there Silver. It is laughable, or rather it should be laughable, to say that, except for the opening sentence describing him as Michele Bachmann's husband, and the huge picture of Michele Bachmann at the top of the article, the article does not write about Michele Bachmann. Additionally, the whole blog post--that's what it actually is--is expressly a sort of addendum to this article, which is linked in the second paragraph of the blog post, an article which is framed in terms of Michele's run for the presidency. So, again, basically all of the coverage of Marcus is in the context of the "event" that is wife's attempt to become president. Not one keep comment here has refuted that, which is kind of the whole point since we are talking about a BLP. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTP, I wrote the article because Mr. Bachmann peeked my interest, and I wanted to learn about him and try to write about him neutrally. I've been on Wikipedia for a long time, and I've given a lot to it, believe in it, and believe in its goals. By my own experience on here, I felt I wrote the article neutrally, and that it was self-evident that he met our guidelines for notability on its face. People have argued I had an agenda, but can't point to evidence of it. People have argued that this will become a COATRACK or an attack article, which is crystal balling that we will fail to prevent it on this high-profile article. Even saying she won't win the Presidency, as you did, is crystal balling. We have readers hitting his article 3,000 times a day, some of whom are undoubtedly primary voters, who are curious about this man. There were more than enough reliable sources to write about him. I would find the idea of including "He acts gay" offensive not only to him, but to gays, and I would oppose such speculation. But on its face this subject meets ever conceivable criterion we have for inclusion, and I felt I did a decent job writing it. I was grateful for the editors who came in with different perspectives and re-wrote parts. That's how the Wiki works, and it's working here, even on in this AfD. I understand your arguments, and I think they are reasonable; I just disagree. --David Shankbone 02:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well that's all well and good but doesn't actually speak to the arguments against retaining an article. I asked you above, I think, if/why you think merging/redirecting for now is a bad idea. I think it's pretty clear that this discussion isn't going to end, "clear consensus to keep," right? A number of us don't think he yet warrants a standalone article. Why not temporarily merge for now, and then revisit this down the road when we know more about what is happening? I would say most everything in your first two paragraphs, less the intro, could be merged to Michele Bachmann and the last three paragraphs would basically all go well in Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012 (I actually that's an ideal place for them). We then redirect to one of those two, in fact I'd say you can go ahead and pick it as far as I'm concerned. The 3,000 readers in question would still get the info, but we better hold to our BLP policies. Are you open to that option, and if not why not? Note that if Marcus Bachmann's notability at some point becomes less attached to his wife's run for the president, or if she wins the nomination, I'll be right there with you arguing for a full article, and at that point recreation of a full BLP would be extremely easy. A merge seems like a pretty ideal solution in the meantime. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to be evasive. I think people are looking for information about Marcus Bachmann, and not solely about him in the context of Michele Bachmann's campaign. He has become a subject of interest in his own right and the 3,000 hits a day confirms that to me. I think we can't do our readers justice by explaining him parsed out among several articles. I believe there are undue weight problems by including him on Michele's article. If the result is "redirect" or "delete" I won't file a DRV, but I still feel an article does no harm and is the optimal solution. Reasonable minds could differ. My position is well-documented on here, Talk:Jimbo Wales and Talk:Marcus Bachmann, and I feel I'm becoming repetitive so I will let this AfD play out without my further involvement. I'm happy to discuss it further on my talk page. --David Shankbone 03:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you're saying that whenever a news article links to another news article, it serves as an addendum to it? So, when the New York Times links to a Los Angeles Times article, it's not serving as an independent article, since it made a single link to another news article? Clearly, this isn't true. It linked to the other page because it has information about the controversy regarding the center. That's all. And, as has been explained above numerous times, it doesn't matter if the coverage came about as a result of Michele nomination, if the coverage is extensive and covers numerous events in Marcus' life, then he is notable. Silver seren^C 02:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Everything you said is wrong. First of all, I clearly did not say the thing you suggest I did in the first and second sentence. It's good to not put people's words/thinking in other folks' mouths/brains. The original thing you linked to is not, I guess I need to say it again, a news article. It is a blog post in the NYT politics blog "The Caucus." It had 627 words in it. The fact that it is a quick blog post matters. It describes Bachmann as the husband of Michele, then immediately links to a longer article that appeared on page A14 of the Times, whose very title framed the whole matter in terms of Michele's run for the presidency. That's the point. And you are ignoring my main point. Haymaker asked about "news coverage of Marcus that did not also write about Michelle." You linked to something, I pointed out that Michele is in the first sentence and there is a picture of her at the top of the post. Apparently that doesn't count for some reason, but I think most would find that argument pretty ridiculous.

And, again, you seem to be pretending that BLP1E does not exist. It does, it's important, even if you do not like it. The statement "it doesn't matter if the coverage came about as a result of Michele nomination, if the coverage is extensive and covers numerous events in Marcus' life, then he is notable" is factually incorrect as a matter of Wikipedia policy, and you need to get your head around that. Were your argument correct, BLP1E would not be functional, because it would mean that we would have an article on, for example, Mayumi Heene simply because there were a lot of stories about her and her husband which talked about a number of things in her life after she became notorious for one particular thing. We can quibble with how to interpret "event," but our core BLP policies invalidate your claim that extensive coverage of numerous things in a person's life = we have an article on them. That isn't how we run the show around here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This. It's a source i've already been showing before. The problem with your interpretation of BLP1E is that you're saying that important people who are working for, say, the President aren't notable, since they're obtaining their notability from him. Except that's not how we work. If they get extensive news coverage about them, they get an article. This is an old source about Michele that also has an extensive amount to say about Marcus, the most important part I think is that "At the GOP endorsing convention in May, he worked the floor of delegates for his wife", which means that he is being politically active, he's not just a low-profile figure, no matter what people say, he's been out there politically for quite some time. As for more recent news, I believe that this is of a fair amount of importance. Silver seren^C 02:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are not doing it on purpose, but it really gets a bit annoying the way you have of responding to arguments I did not make. Where did I say "that important people who are working for, say, the President aren't notable, since they're obtaining their notability from him"? Nowhere, obviously, and I obviously don't think that—it's an absurd caricature of my argument. My argument, for the twelfth time, is that Marcus Bachmann should not have an article per BLP1E, because basically all of the coverage of him is in terms of one event, namely his wife's presidential campaign. Feel free to disagree, but at least respond to my actual argument.

As to the latest sources you are throwing out--funny stuff there. The first is an interview he did on an AM Christian radio network which happens to be based right by where I grew up. I ain't never heard of it before. I know you linked to this because you think it is all about Marcus. Obviously you didn't listen to it, because the first caller is...drum roll...Michele Bachmann! And they then proceed to talk about Michele going on to ANWR or something and how she will be on their show tomorrow. Again, thanks for making Haymaker's point! Maybe you could stop to think about the fact that you are struggling to find anything about Marcus that doesn't talk about his wife? Doesn't that maybe tell us something?

The City Pages article is a good one, not for you though, because it actually says "Marcus Bachmann has never played much of a public role in his wife's campaigns, and neither her allies nor her detractors seem to know much about him." It's nice that you can find things that say his name and such, but you might want to actually read them, because the source you say "has an extensive amount to say about Marcus" (that isn't true, but whatever) might as well be saying "this guy is not well known, definitely don't have a Wikipedia article about him."

Can you rethink your position here? Or can you at least answer my question about why a merge that retains basically all of the content is not a good idea? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point about the staff is that their notability comes from a singular event, the President's...presidency. (Alliteration bad!) If you're going to say that Michele's entire campaign (which you are somehow including stuff from five years ago as also being a part of her campaign) counts as a singular event, then so does a number of other things, like a presidency, as I was saying, so Cabinet members shouldn't get articles, regardless of how much coverage they get. However, this is clearly untrue, they do get articles if they get the coverage.

Again, then talking to Michele has nothing to do with them talking to Marcus about his clinic. Since Michele was involved in the founding of the clinic, though Marcus was the main founder, why would there be a source that doesn't mention her? If you have two important people that are married, why would any source not mention who they're married to? The news points out connections like that.

The City Pages article is discussing how, before that, he wasn't politically public, but he has become as such afterward, for example, by speaking at the GOP convention and for "going on the political offensive", as it says. Silver seren^C 03:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with the argument that we shouldn't have an article about a spouse for his own right, but now that he is noteworthy on his own for being an anti-gay therapist, his persona has its own importance independent of Michele. If Michele does become the nominee, too, then he'll get his own page anyways. But I do think he is noteworthy in his own right at this point, particularly in the LGBT community.cpsteiner | cpsteiner |

comment: Sourcing indicates he is of note. However, I agree with the delete comments that "not a single thing he is done is notable". If he is not notable for anything in his own right except being the spouse of a candidate is this acceptable? I would be inclined to Merge with a summary on him ni his spouse's article. After reading the article I see no indication of what he actually notable for which is a shame as the article is so well sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Strong Keep’’’ I may be new to editing/commenting, but I've long used Wikipedia as my first resource for internet research. I was looking for information about Marcus Bachmann today and came across the piece here. The article was informative and the links and references provided further reading/information. I thought that was the purpose of Wikipedia? I was dismayed to see that the article is nominated for deletion. I had no idea Wikipedia editors have the opportunity to decide what information I can and cannot access. I understand cleaning up graffiti and attacks on people, but why keep information from those who are looking for it or wish to share with each other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeafScholar (talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly Wikipedia content policies and practices can seem a bit odd to folks who don't edit here (or maybe they just are odd!). For example, your argument that the information is useful and helped you learn more might seem like the common sense approach to deciding what we write about, but for various reasons we explicitly do not think in those terms because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. When it comes to articles about people who are alive, we tend to have a higher bar for inclusion because these articles are often used as sites for defamation, which is a serious problem. More about that is explained here if you are interested. So the intention, even for those arguing for deletion, is really not to keep information from people, but rather to follow the guidelines we have come up with over the years as to how to best write this encyclopedia (as you can see, we regularly disagree about how to apply those guidelines to particular cases). Of course, you yourself are more than welcome to contribute and offer your own views, as you are doing, as to what does and does not belong. Note that I'm only offering this comment to provide some info, not in an effort to convince you to change your mind. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I very much not agree with your view that we "tend to have a higher bar for inclusion because these articles are often used as sites for defamation, which is a serious problem". We have a higher bar to protect the privacy of the person in general. However, Bachman easily passes that bar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your characterization, but I think it is also true that one component of the concern over "privacy," broadly defined, is that biography articles have regularly been used to attack people--surely you agree that has happened--which is why we say "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered" in our BLP policy. It happens to be one of the things people are concerned about with this particular article, whether or not you agree with that(we also have a speedy criteria, G10, which, while obviously not applying here, expressly makes it easier for us to remove certain articles about living people). I was not attempting a full summary of these issues but just dashing off a quick reply--I'm sure I could have worded it better. And obviously we disagree about Bachmann's notability, but that has nothing to do with my comment. There's not really anything worth arguing about here and I'm not even sure we disagree about the general issue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks good to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate, please? This is a discussion, not a poll.--JayJasper (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start by saying that as an outsider, most US political figures seem self-caricaturing to me. Having said that, the article seems to be well sourced from mainstream (as I understand the US mainstream) sources. While the article focuses on a single aspect of the subjects life, it appears to be both what makes him notable and an aspect of his life that he has chosen to present to the public. Sure the article could be much more complete and well-rounded, but it there are only partisan sources for these facts, I'm not sure that's a trade-off we should make. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason why he has become notable is irrelevant--it seems beyond question that he has. The spouses of serious presidential candidates generally are--the public not unreasonably takes interest in their views and their life in general. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep media outlets have covered him as a significant factor in her not unrealistic bid for president, the most powerful person in the history of the world. the fact that he will be a target for bad editing is not a rationale for deletion, only a rationale for protection and monitoring. Its too easy to carry "not inherited" and "blp" arguments too far. deleting the bio of a living person for fear of blp violations only works for extremely marginal subjects, esp. when the subject themselves requests it. he is of course notable for being married to his wife, but in this case thats pretty important.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is to keep, because the future first ever first gentlemen of these United States is inherently notable in addition to inheriting notability from his spouse. Now, here's my deal. I have long used Wikipedia to look up information and hoped to do so again this morning. Well, you see, last night I am watching this show on HBO starring Bill Maher in which Mr. Bachmann comes up, right? Maher pokes some fun at this man and so, you know what? I figure, why not learn about himself from Wikipedia. So, as usual, I search for him here and what's the first thing I see on his article? Yeah, that's right, some drivel dravel about the article being nominated for deltion?! WTF?! An article concerning a real man with not just coverage on news networks, but who is also discussed on comedy shows is going to be deleted?! Okay, so, well, as more of a reader than an editor on this site thus far, maybe I am unfamiliar with how it works, so let's read this discussion to see if a sensible justification for starting this discussion in the first place can be made. The closest thing to a legitimate concern seems to be use of this article to smear a man who has cared for dozens of children with his wife. But even then, anyone who inserts libel could be dealt with by whoever moderates this site, right? Or can't some articles be protected or watched from libelers? After all, it looks like some articles have "Edit" while others have "View Source" on them. So, not every article can really be altered by every Tom, Dick, and Harry, yes? People posting nonsense in articles is par for the course for a site like this. You'll get your idiots who rename the first Emperor of the French as Napoleon Bonerpart or who think potatorship should replace dictatorship, but do you delete Napoleon or dictatorship altogether? In those same articles, you will probably get your share of bias and agenda based content, but again, that should not stand in the way of what this site covers. Any intelligent person would read this article with a mind to the footnotes to see what is and is not coming from a neutral or reliable source. But once you get past the easily challenged attempt at a reasonable concern, those calling to delete the article wade into nonsense territory. From what I gather, something to be covered on this site must be notable (you really use a subjective criteria for inclusion?) as defined apparently and arbitrarily by multiple references in whatever some of you declare to be reliable sources. Well, that's a given in this case. No one can dispute that he is discussed at length by valid media outlets. Plus, the man is a PhD in addition to being a candidate's husband. Next, the calls for deletion devolve into just having name calling and mud slinging, much of which seems to come from the nominator herself who carries herself in a totally unhelpful, unladylike, and unprofessional manner that suggests if anything her mother should give her a good spanking for the way in which she treats her fellow discussers here. Why do any of you tolerate such an editor who cannot possibly even be an adult anyway? I thought Wikipedia is supposed to be an attempt at a valid encyclopedia, not a place of unacademic and immature attacking of everyone who disagrees with you? But yeah, after years of making the occasional minor edit on whatever computer I happened to be on, this was the first WTF I noticed on this site that called out for creating an actual account so that I could comment in what I see as a theater of the absurd. I am not sure I want to be a part of it much further, but I hope the reasoned among you will see something so ridiculous for what it is and not humor nonsenical time waste discussions as this one in the first place. On a final note, my heart goes out to the victims of that madman in Norway. What a disgraceful act of violence. Yeah, I am miffed to see this article being discussed here, but I am outright sickened about what happened to our Norwegian brothers and sisters. Out! --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC) — The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep, prefer Merge into Michelle Bachmann. On the one hand, this article was clearly created for bad-faith reasons (the creator admits as much above), and still reads like an attack page - it's essentially just a List of Marcus Bachmann controversies. On the other hand, he does technically meet our standards for inclusion. I think the best thing to do would be to merge this article into his wife's, as there's just not all that much to say about him, and that would address some of the BLP issues. But if it's between keeping and deletion, I would reluctantly say 'keep, but clean up so it reads less like a partisan hit job'. Robofish (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that I wrote above indicting a bad faith reason. Aside from the consistent press coverage of Marcus Bachmann in his own right, he repeatedly describes himself as her strategist and she has stated that she is biblically commanded to obey him (choosing a career she didn't want because he wanted her to). None of that is bad faith; I've made no judgment on whether those things are good or bad; you can't point to an opinion I hold on the Bachmanns (outside of taking flattering photos) but all of it points to his notability, period. I also like that for everyone who says it's an attack article, or a hit piece, they don't raise any examples. Not once. Sure, it might need some re-writing, but with all the editing that has been done to it so far it has remained more-or-less the same as what I wrote. --David Shankbone 16:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guy has been all over the news lately. It's true that he and his practice and his opinions would not have become so prominent if he were not married to Michelle Bachman, but WHY he became so notable is irrelevant. He IS notable and that's what determines his inclusion (or not). The article could do a better job of showing how extensive the news coverage on him has been. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTINHERITED. The information box on the article clearly states that Mr. Bachmann is Known for: husband of Michele Bachmann - his "fame" for running some fringe/freakish therapy center would never be notable on its own terms if he was not married to a leading American politician. I like what Tarc says: "This is an encyclopedia, not a vacuum cleaner." This dust bunny of an article can be thrown out without disrupting the character of the web site. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED doees not apply to people who gain notability IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. See Amy Carter, Betty Ford, and Elizabeth Edwards for examples. Bachmann has attracted the media attention HIMSELF, and the media is writing stories about him and him alone. That he first entered the spotlight as someone else's spouse is not relevant to his own notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Republican[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable neologism, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Contested proposed deletion. Chzz ► 22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the term was just coined in the blogosphere in the last month. While it may, at some point in the future, gain mainstream acceptance, it has not done so yet. (Note: when looking for sources, don't be confused by "True Blue Republican", which occurs quite a bit - that's just using the adjective true blue to describe somebody's Republicanism - it's unrelated to the idea of a "Blue Republican", which is the concept of a Democrat voting for Ron Paul to object to statist policies of Obama.) --B (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"While it may, at some point in the future, gain mainstream acceptance, it has not done so yet." Lots of ideas that are on wikipedia have not gained mainstream acceptance. And since when is the truth or importance of a matter determined by "the mainstream" -- ie the public, the majority, the blithering commoner? If we accepted the mob's definition of importance to settle the issue of worth, we'd have thrown out every great piece of art, literature, and culture in the Western Canon, and be left with nothing but the whinings of Miley Cyrus and Toni Morrison.

And so how do you propose we determine the importance of a term? My small town of 5000 people has a wikipedia page! Do you think anyone outside of my county gives a damn about it? This, on the other hand, is a very significant political movement that is affecting the current history of the United States -- and the people should be able to learn about it if they wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixAquarius (talk • contribs) 02:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Municipalities are inherently notable. Words made up last week are not. --B (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B, I think I see why we disagree. It is nothing more than a miscommunication, probably my fault. This article isn't meant to be about the definition of a new word; it is mean to explain a new political movement. How can someone argue that a municipality of 5000 people is more important than a political movement that already has 3000 members on facebook alone, and which has been featured on news stations on TV and in numerous online publications? -- PhoenixAquarius (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG--JayJasper (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting concept, but it doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly the kind of information for which Wikipedia is arguably the best provider. Traditional paper encyclopedias of course cannot respond as quickly as we can. The point is the term exists, it is being used, and it has a meaning. Thus, readers are likely to google it, and even come specifically to Wikipedia to look it up. Isn't it better to reliably document what little source-able usage of it that there is, rather than not document it at all? What better place to have a neutral and informative definition of such topics than Wikipedia? And what is the harm in having it? It's not like we're tight on disk space. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information that people don't know, not regurgitate stuff that everybody already knows verbatim without question. When people hear a term they don't understand they look it up in a search engine or Wikipedia to find out about it. Wikipedia would be useless indeed if it deleted every article that the masses didn't already know everything about. Additionally, the above objection about the "mainstream-ness" of a term may be politically motivated -- an attempt to block information and to prevent a political idea from spreading. This sort of political censorship should be firmly resisted by Wikipedia. -- User:carolm62 10:27 18 July, 2011 (UTC)— carolm62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Merge and Redirect to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012. Changing from my previous position in favor of "delete". While it does not appear to have enough coverage presently to warrant a stand-alone article, it has relevance to the Paul campaign and has at least enough coverage to justify a mention in the campaign article. Can always reinstated as an article should a higher volume of significant coverage ensue.--JayJasper (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a good compromise, though it should be noted that the term is not specific to Ron Paul. It could be used to refer to Gary Johnson supporters who temporarily register Republican to vote for him as well. Perhaps for now the redirect should be to a subsection on the article about the Republican primaries, Republican Party (United_States) presidential primaries, 2012? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It could refer to Johnson based on what? The guy who invented the term defined it as Ron Paul. Does anyone use this term to describe voting for Gary Johnson? --B (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree with B. Ron Paul is the primary and original focus of this movement, so it should redirect to his 2012 campaign article. If sources show the term has expanded to include Gary Johnson, it can mentioned on his '12 campaign article as well, while acknowledging that Paul was the original object of the movement.--JayJasper (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a clarification of my earlier delete !vote, I have no problem with the title being merged/redirected somewhere - but there should not be an article at this name when it's clearly not notable. --B (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012. Not enough information for stand-alone article and there is no relevance outside of Paul's campaign. Location (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!! Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican that can beat Obama in 2012. Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican that will end the wars, stop the out of control spending, end the Federal Reserve Cartel, and win over the Democratic voters as well as Republican voters! Ron Paul is the Thomas Jefferson of our generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterDRichter (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — PeterRichter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thats true, but irrelevant.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge I am a Ron Paul supporter and an inclusionist, but I think its a bit premature on this. It may not come out to be anything in the end. Certainly I hope it does, but we wont know until we know. So until theres more mainstream usage and it is shown to have at least a plausible effect, I say we can it. The merge could mention how some ~~progressives~~ regressives :P are promoting it.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia differs from print encyclopedias in that, like the internet itself, it is immediate and dynamic. Many times it responds to the cultural tide with such immediacy it appears to drive public discourse. Like many today when I encounter an unfamiliar term, online or elsewhere, my first resource is to use my favorite search engine to discover its meaning. The phrase in question, Blue Republican, has appeared in several articles online. The Huffington Post article If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year) on 7/8/2011 has generated somewhat of a blogosphere buzz. A Yahoo search for the term Blue Republican on 7/21/2011 generated over two dozen solid hits in spite of a very energetic effort by partisans to marginalize the concept. If Wikipedia is to stay on the cutting-edge of public discourse and thought it must decide if it is willing to lead or, as print media must, simply follow. comment added by LesReasonover (talk • contribs) 09:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — LesReasonover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - Yes the term is recent and there is only a limited number of sources for the term as yet, but it's a movement happening right now and it's important because it's actually a mass exodus of people who previously voted Democrat over to the Republican side - something which simply doesn't happen in this hyper polarized America. This is a real movement gaining a lot of steam and traction and contrary to what has been written above this is NOT just about Ron Paul - this is about the failure of the Democratic Party to live up to its ideals, and the absolute loss of faith in Obama and the status quo political process. This movement is not so much pro-Ron Paul as it is anti war. Remember, for a Democrat to switch over to what is functionally Libertarian-ism requires a large scale abandonment of many Democrat objectives. This movement describes a core group of Democrats who have decided to make their displeasure with the Democrats known, despite their fierce opposition to the GOP - hence the need to modify the term Republican (make it Blue) just to be somewhat palatable! So this is my contention - it's an important movement in its own right, is not exclusively about Ron Paul, and deserves a Wiki page of its own based on that ground. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.24.133.226 (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — 89.24.133.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep -Wikipedia is out there so anyone can look up relevant material in order to make judgements. If Wikipedia begins to follow the politically correct media force that's engulfed the U.S., then they will no longer be a viable source for information. This particular "Blue Republican" article from the Huffington Post is generating enough interest that there will be many people wishing to search the internet to read up on it, including the movement that appears to have begun by R.Koerner's article. Why should Wikipedia not be a source on information on this topic? Why delete or redirect or merge. Someone searching for this topic will likely not search for it under Ron Paul. Redirecting or merging to Ron Paul would appear to be a serious bias on the part of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaylyn512 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Gaylyn512 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Per preceding comments "Why .... redirect or merge. Someone searching for this topic will likely not search for it under Ron Paul." If it is merged & redirected, the reader will not have to search for it under Ron Paul, they can enter "Blue Republican" in the search box and it will link directly to the section in the article to which it was redirected. Why do this? Because, at the present time, there is not enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources on the subject to meet the general notability guideline and thus justify a stand-alone article. Should there be an increase in significant coverage in reliable media sources, however, the article could easily be reinstated.--JayJasper (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This falls under WP:CLUB, WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:POLITICIANS, and arguably others. True Blue Republican is obviously a 'True Blue' Republican where Blue Republican is easily recognized as a Democratic ideology leaning Republican. Blue States are obviously Democratic. Red States are obviously Republican. Blue Dog Democrats are Democratic Politicians that must vote somewhat conservatively and Blue Republicans are Democratic Voters who must vote Republican to keep a NeoCon from winning the nomination. The group has established themselves as Democrats who want Ron Paul. It would be appropriate to link to Wikis containing Ron Paul, but the Blue Republicans are a group separate from Ron Paul's campaign. It is little different than a PAC. No other group has claimed the name and the group is gaining popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theendisfar (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Theendisfar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - Someone needs to explain the HARM that is caused by keeping this entry. It may be relatively new, but it is extremely timely, as the primary season is virtually upon us. Moreover, deletion of a HARMLESS / HELPFUL entry like this gives fire to the Consp. Theorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeptic14 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Skeptic14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see WP:NOHARM. Also, appeasing conspiracy theorists is not a criterion for keeping an article.--JayJasper (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS is my vote. It is accurate in it's description of the new coinage of the phrase. Wiki ought to delete only INACCURATE information. This does not meet that criteria. I often turn to Wiki to find the definition of new terms, old terms I have forgotten, etc. Please keep this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.8 (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — 24.158.225.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Accuracy of a phrase is not criterion for a stand-alone article. Please see WP:GNG. However, the relevance of the phrase and the movement within the context of Ron Paul's campaign does justify mention of it in, and a redirect to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012.

See WP:NOTVOTE. Kinaro^{(say hello)} ^{(what's been done)} 22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. no need to have a separate page for something that would appear if searched, if it is merged. Not only is the phrase new, the article is not particularly well written.— 184.91.236.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep -- The article has potential and the term is being widely used in the political field as of late. Kinaro^{(say hello)} ^{(what's been done)} 20:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it "has potential" but presently lacks significant coverage in reputable secondary sources, and thus fails the general notability guideline. As for "being widely used in the political field as of late", please see WP:RECENTISM & WP:NOTNEWS. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, potential alone is not sufficient to justify a stand-alone article, but it is a good argument for merging & redirecting to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012: the basic information remains (albeit in a different place) and can still be located by searching "Blue Republican" in the WP search engine. It can also be revisited in the future and easily recreated as an article should it coverage & notability warrant it.--JayJasper (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are valid and on that note I support a merge to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012. Kinaro^{(say hello)} ^{(what's been done)} 22:41, 23 July 2011 (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 Wrota Europy, no consensus on Syzyfowe prace, as there has been no discussion of its merits one way r the other. I could let this run another week to see if a consensus emerges on Syzyfowe prace, but since the main subject of the AfD is clearly a keep, especially since the nominator effectively withdrew that nomination, it seems less confusing to close this with no prejudice against opening a new AfD covering Syzyfowe prace alone, if anyone desires to do so. Rlendog (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrota Europy[edit]

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

Not meet the criteria Leticja (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [It not meet the criteria too]:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leticja (talk • contribs)

Not meeting what criteria? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me articles not meeting this criteria.

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. 2. Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. 3. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. 4. The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. 5. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. 6. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. 7. The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. 8. (?) The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn) 9. (?) The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.Leticja (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wrota Europy as the recipient of three Polish Film Awards. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Syzyfowe prace (film) shouldn't be bundled in the same nomination because its notability is completely independent from that of Wrota Europy. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
about Wrota Europy agree, I saw just now, it's my mistake. But Syzyfowe prace, I thing, is suitable for this nomination and not meeting criteria. Leticja (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wrota Europy, which is the article covered by this nomination. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Les Voyageurs Inc.[edit]

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

No relevant third-party sources are in the article to establish notability, and I was unable to find any online. It does not seem to be notable, and gives the appearance of simply being an advertisement. Has been tagged as having no references for over two years, and has been submitted to AfD before, with no consensus being drawn from that last AfD. SudoGhost ™ 22:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per lack of news coverage. I didn't find any good sources on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete independent references are not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Kole[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any relevant SNG. Only one nomination (group scene), no mainstream credits, no non-spurious GNews or GBooks hits, no reliable sourcing, no meaningful biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nomination for a single award is not notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In a way, this article reminds me of one day not too long ago-- well, actually it was a few years ago, now that I think of it... seven maybe-- when I was reading a book about some particular subject-- I forget now what it was specifically, but that is not important, the point is that it was something that one should not at all reasonably hope to find a justification for the existence of an article on at Wikipedia, because the thing the book was about was certainly not notable enough to gain approval from all the best editors here, and it got me to wondering what one would do if one found a book-- or even two-- covering vast ranges of subjects that were not notable, that is, not acceptable to us guardians of the gate of articles at Wikipedia, reliably and significantly covering these subjects, and how would we then prove that these non-notable subjects, having books written on them, were nevertheless non-notable, because even though Wikipedia claims that a source, or more specifically sources, on particular subjects-- unless they're subjects no one pays attention to-- to all intents and purposes, constitutes notability for the subject in question, we would probably have to discredit the book itself, claiming it itself was non-notable since, most likely, it would not have a book written on it-- sure, maybe a passing mention in a magazine review, but that only counts for subjects we like-- or maybe that the book was unreliable simply because it covered non-notable subjects, i.e., subjects not covered at Wikipeida, which no self-respecting author of significant and reliable sourcing would ever do, and that therefore any subject written about in the book is non-notable, and therefore, in a roundabout manner, unworthy of coverage here at our project covering the some-- just the bits we like-- of human knowledge, though perhaps, ultimately, these reminiscences are moot since the subject of this AfD does not have a book written on it-- or at least not one that anyone who has edited the article has listed at the article (I'm guessing here, because I haven't even looked at the article), and I certainly don't have enough interest in the subject to waste time looking for one, and, because I don't like it anyway, and would keep quiet about it even if I found one... Anyway, have a nice day. Dekkappai (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edith J. Cromwell[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. Proposed deletion removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find significant coverage of this person in reliable independent sources. Furthermore, this article doesn't clearly establish the subject's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90. Am86 (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is missing both verifiable sources and a clear claim that would constitute notability. VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to establish notability and was speedily deleted twice before under A7. Eeekster (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:44, 23 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerez coleman[edit]

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

Unremarkable actor / model / musician. CSD previously declined. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 20:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete independent references are not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of notable sources, none of which were found on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 24 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition (band)[edit]

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

google search turned up nothing not noteable St8fan (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a (badly-written) hoax. No band of this name has ever had a hit album or single in the UK, and I can find no record of the albums claimed in the article.--Michig (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any evidence they exist either. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of existence UncommonlySmooth (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : fails WP:Music. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete independent references are not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2011 (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 Wrong forum. This is a redirect, so any attempt to delete it should be made at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kitamura[edit]

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

No reliable sources state that "Ken Kitamura" is the legal name of Ken (musician). Xfansd (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Heights Unitarian Congregation[edit]

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

Not notable DeusImperator (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This church has not been established as notable per WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of media coverage. My Google and Yahoo search didn't bring any notable mentions, just other church websites and a forum. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding the sorts of coverage needed to satisfy the GNG. LadyofShalott 01:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group to notify that project's members of this discussion. LadyofShalott 01:44, 21 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martinique (singer)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. No other claim to notability, no significant coverage found Comte0 (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Comte0 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded this using the rationale that the nominator has used for this AFD. Not sure why this is now at AFD since nobody appeared to have a problem with it being deleted via prod.--Michig (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't seem to find a reference for the song being a hit, which would certainly change things. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2011 (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 per WP:CSD#G7 by Peridon (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wreck (musician)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Autobiographical article about a non notable musician. Fails notability criteria at WP:BAND. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. Does not meet the criteria at WP:BAND. Jenks24 (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaneshikan Martial Arts[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Only reference is to a directory listing where people can self describe a style. Google showing nothing of significance. Disputed prod noq (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability and no reliable sources. Astudent0 (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an article with no reliable sources on a topic that fails WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability and no reliable sources. COI. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonored (video game)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. It's not clear whether this game is even in production yet. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 16:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It looks like it is early in production but in production nonetheless. The studios involved don't have a history of producing vaporware. Unfortunately, solid references are still slim, but details are emerging, if rather undefined. Several Times (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] etc. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Game has been officially announced by developers, details about its content are emerging rapidly. CR4ZE (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just Software AG[edit]

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

Lacks notability: Even the COO (by his own account) of the company is unable to come up with multiple, realiable sources that are independet of the subject. In reaction to my deletion attempt, the COO (user:Schnebus) came up with (1) a blog post of a very small company working in the same field, (2) an article published in a swiss magazine that presents companies against money, (3) a blog post on a small German social network that is somehow related to Just Software which has its own article (however, it has already been deleted in the German Wikipedia due to lack of notability). These sources do not suffice to establish notability. Dr bongi (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another software company in the social business software industry, that makes a Social Networking and Online Collaboration Software suite, advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of enough notable mentions. The closest of a mention that I found on Google and Yahoo was this PCWorld article mentioning a lawsuit against Just Software AG. If more sources are found, the article is welcome to be rewritten. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Don't confuse "Just Software AG" with the German "Software AG". Software AG is a stock corporation, larger than Just Software by factor 9999... Dr bongi (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage must be about the subject, not mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilza Rosario[edit]

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

Actress and singer who does not appear to be notable yet, despite one role in the movie Burn Notice. Article definitely smacks of self-promotion as do the very rude comments on the Joe Decker talk page following deletion under a PROD. Can't find any reliable sources but there could be something in Spanish that I am missing. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userify as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A10 by User:Fastily. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 20:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathu La incident[edit]

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

The article Sino-Indian relations covers this incident already in depth than this article and without the chest thumping. Also, article is also factually incorrect on several grounds. Please delete no need to merge as the Sino-Indian Relations not only contains factually correct information including the background but is written from a neutral point of view without involving some sort of tribal superiority being invoked. DeusImperator (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has relevant reference from original research work done by History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Their no tribal superiority involvement it has EVIDENCE. Please review article before considering for deletion Sehmeet singh (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, consider incubation. Yes, Sino-Indian relations handles the incident better than is done here. That said, there is an article on the Chola incident, which goes into considerable detail. If this article were expanded, written neutrally, pulled in sources other than one of the participants in the incident, and generally brought up to the level of the Chola article, I could see an article on Nathu La existing independently. However, in its current state, there is no need for this article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Nathu La incident may exist interdependently as an article, and gave some thought to that avenue of preserving the article. However, China and India have treated this as a minor skirmish. Number of deaths on the Chinese side is very speculative and India has used their estimates (actually heavily massaged in their favor) of the Chinese casualties to boost moral. However, India chose not to escalate this incident and may not have caused any casualties with their mortars. However there was direct engage in the form of close quarter combat earlier into the skirmish. Both parties are fairly mum regarding the incident and that is not likely to change in the near future. India invoked the Official Secrets Act around the incident. However from what is known the Wiki article Sino-Indian relations covers it well as it could be from information available at present. DeusImperator (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without deletion. There's not enough here to justify spinning out the article, but there's a pretty good case to be made for notability. Couldn't this be A10-speedied, which wouldn't set any precedent regarding the underlying notability? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Wilkes[edit]

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

15-year-old film-maker who doesn't appear to be notable. Only one of the three sources is allegedly about him, and that claims to have been published in 1997, when the subject would've been two years old. Prod removed. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there might be a successful AfD defense made for the hemophilia activist of the same name, this young aspiring moviemaker is not the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent sources and clearly does not rise to the General Notability benchmarks. I do wish him all the best with his various projects and hope that he has a successful career. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find the entire article hard to believe, and the references aren't about the subject. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with MikeWazowski, the sources are unreliable, (Facebook,Yahoo Answers,IMDB,etc.) Mayhem Mario 19:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References are not about the subject. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references are odd. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Simply fails GNG. There might be a possibility that author and subject of the article are both same (promotional). — Bill william compton^Talk 03:30, 24 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CairoShell[edit]

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

1. The article has no third-party sources currently, so fails WP:N at this point. 2. The software development has stopped in the alpha/beta phase (unusable state) for over a year without any news and update and it may be reasonably called Vaporware. Jacob-Dang 13:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero independent coverage, it seems. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Stuartyeates (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of third-party and notable coverage. I didn't get any notable on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks even one reliable independent secondary source to support notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not for promotion WP:SOAP or a crystal ball of products that may someday become available WP:CRYSTAL. Msnicki (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just Software AG[edit]

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

Lacks notability: Even the COO (by his own account) of the company is unable to come up with multiple, realiable sources that are independet of the subject. In reaction to my deletion attempt, the COO (user:Schnebus) came up with (1) a blog post of a very small company working in the same field, (2) an article published in a swiss magazine that presents companies against money, (3) a blog post on a small German social network that is somehow related to Just Software which has its own article (however, it has already been deleted in the German Wikipedia due to lack of notability). These sources do not suffice to establish notability. Dr bongi (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another software company in the social business software industry, that makes a Social Networking and Online Collaboration Software suite, advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of enough notable mentions. The closest of a mention that I found on Google and Yahoo was this PCWorld article mentioning a lawsuit against Just Software AG. If more sources are found, the article is welcome to be rewritten. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Don't confuse "Just Software AG" with the German "Software AG". Software AG is a stock corporation, larger than Just Software by factor 9999... Dr bongi (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage must be about the subject, not mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Musial[edit]

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

Autobiographical article which lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. RadioFan (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2011 (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. Sandstein is correct, so the article should be deleted regardless of whether the nominator cited that rationale. causa sui (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)~~ Reversing my close and resolving as keep per peer review on Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Ravians. --causa sui (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravians[edit]

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

Should be on the main article of the school and it would be best if Ravians became a redirect to that article. Quiggers1P (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such a list fulfils WP:SAL and there is precedence by plenty of suitable lists of alumni for other institutions (such as List of Old Aitchisonians), so long as they meet WP:NLIST with suitable citations and are non-trivial there is no need to merge. --Fæ (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see why this "should" be in the main article of the school. Nor has any rationale been presented.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Government College University#Notable alumni where a more complete and better organised list already exists. TerriersFan (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would recommend the reverse. The naff and mostly unsourced and unverified embedded list of names in the Government College University article is so long that it dwarfs the rest of the content. I suggest it is split out and merged to this stand alone list article. Fæ (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merging unsourced content to an unsourced list isn't much of an improvement. What is needed, as you suggested, is a sourced and copyedited list. What we don't need are two competing unsourced lists. Better to have one good list (and I don't care which), and redirect either way. TerriersFan (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, if sourced, merge to Government College University. This is an unsourced list of potentially living persons, requiring deletion per WP:BLP if it is not made verifiable by adding a reliable source. Sandstein 09:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 11:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with Sandstein. WP:BLP properly applies to unsourced negative information about living persons. It's not negative information about someone to call them an alumnus of a university. I broadly concur with Fae on this.—S Marshall T/C 11:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The material is contentious by virtue of being nominated for deletion. Sandstein 14:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It was not nominated for deletion because the substance of it was contentious. It was nominated for one reason, and one reason only -- because of where the material was located. Nothing at all about the material itself was indicated as being contentious. In fact, nom supported the inclusion of the material ... just in another article.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing any policy-based assertion from the nominator. "Should be" and "would be" are not reasons to raise nomination for deletion. On the merits, I see User:Sandstein's concern. While I'd prefer improvement and sourcing for the list, the BLP standard User:S Marshall raises is actually "contentious" or "challenged or likely to be challenged". Nothing like that here. A click through of the individual biographies shows almost all contain an assertion of being an alumni of this notable institution. Some of those assertions are sourced. Category:Ravians demonstrates there's significant room for pagespace expansion. If there are BLP issues, they are on the pages of the individual biographies, not an alumni list. This list should be improved, not deleted. Template:USMALists displays about a dozen lists of alumni, many featured lists, all from one insitution. BusterD (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the college. There is already a list of notable alumni on the college article which is the usual practise. A separate article isn't appropriate and may end up as a long list of non notable people. Also - no refs. Szzuk (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Future Not Far[edit]

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

Unreferenced, no assertion of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (books), can't find any mention of it online. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article's creator, who is also the author of the book. Gurt Posh (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the article has failed to meet the notability requirement. Completely unreferenced and difficult to find any reference or information about mentioned book online. Jacob-Dang — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobDang (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. I disagree, it is simply a book which is still waiting to be published. 90.213.74.81 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)— 90.213.74.81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If it hasn't been published yet, then how is it notable? Gurt Posh (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RS is not optional. Possibly COI issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:INDY, "Any article on a topic is required to cite a reliable source independent of the topic itself, to warrant that an article on the topic can be written from a neutral point of view and not contain original research." Additionally, almost all of the editing of the article has been done by the author of the book in question; see WP:COI, and I think the policies on someone writing/editing their own bio are also applicable (see WP:BLPEDIT). Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per G11. WP:CRYSTAL and self-promotion. No assertion of general notability, no independent sources, and article is written as promotion of a book not yet published, by the author, so WP:COI. Fails every section of WP:NBOOK. BusterD (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T.Jay[edit]

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

Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found to support the text. Does not meet the notability guidelines for biographies of musicians as even though he's contributed to a number 1 single, he has not gained notability independent of that event. CharlieDelta (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —CharlieDelta (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2011 (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. on one hand the currenta rticle appears to sduffer from lack of scope adn OR and on the other there seesm to be a lot of literature disiccusiing different aspects of the term. I suspect that what we need is a different article less reliant on OR that addressed the contents of the books. Anyone here up to working on that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Marxism[edit]

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

The contents of the Neo-marxism page refers primarily to Marxists who were not Stalinists: Georg Lukács, Karl Korsch and Antonio Gramsci, Max Horkheimer und Theodor W. Adorno. The implication is that plain old "Marxists" are all Stalinists, which is a fringe POV and politically motivated byt right-wing ideologues from the Cold War. The people covered in this list considered themselves Marxists, and were and are considered by most people to be Marxists. Sometimes these people are identified more specifically as "Western Marxists," others as "the Frankfurt School" - but these designation does not mean they are not Marxists, just as labeling someone a Stalinist does not mean he is not a Marxist. All of the scholars and activists mentioned on this page rightfully should be discussed on the Marxism page

It is not surprising that when one googles "Neo-marxism" the first hit is the WP article. As I said above, some people do use the term "neo-marxist" but they constitute a fringe view. All the major sources on marxism - by Marxists, by intellectual historians, and historians, identify these men as marxists. We should not create new articles just to accommodate a fringe view, that violates our policy on POV-forks

The article actually says "There is no formal Neo-Marxist organization and seldom do people call themselves Neo-Marxists, so it is difficult to describe who belongs to this movement. Also there is no set definition as to what a Neo-Marxist is, which makes grouping and categorizing this idea even more difficult." which is practically an admission of defeat. I take it to mean: our time can be spent more productively by working on other articles that do have a clearly defined object or scope.

This article also violates NOR and reads like a personal essay. This is why I do not propose a merge. If it were properly researched and had encyclopedic content, I would have proposed a merge. But it does not offer any information that is not already on WP at the Marxist article or other articles already linked to that article. In other words, WP already covers, much more encyclopedically, all the content - which is meager - in this article. This article simply adds nothing to Wikipedia.

This article was created in 2005 and it still reads like a stub. If 7 years of work can't move it beyond a stub, I see no point in continuing. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An appallingly bad article, that invites "fact" tagging on just about every sentence. Looking at the Talk page, the concern has been around for years on being unable to get to grips with an unfocused essay that cannot even be clear on what is its subject or if it exists. I see no loss in its deletion. AllyD (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The relative badness of the article isn't the question here, it's whether the topic is notable in encyclopedic terms. The nominator correctly notes that Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci considered themselves Marxists. This is neither here nor there, as I think the idea is that there has been an intellectual movement called "Neo-Marxism" which has drawn upon dissident strands in the thought of these three Marxists — not that these were themselves participants in a coherent movement, which they clearly were not. This is REALLY close to my home stomping ground in terms of area of specialty at Wikipedia but I honestly am not sure myself at the moment how this challenge should play out. It's an interesting question. I will dig. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is gonna be a short dig, this should clearly be recorded as a "keep." See, for example, Arato's From Neo-Marxism to Democratic Theory: Essays on the Critical Theory of Soviet-Type Societies (M.E. Sharpe, 1993) which deals with the evolution of thinking in the late Soviet Union from the body of dissident Marxist ideas ("Neo-Marxism") to Western-style social theory. THIS ESSAY by A.M. Sirota, which may or may not meet muster itself as a source for purposes of this challenge defense, explains the attraction of "neo-Marxism" during the late Soviet period as a last-ditch attempt to revitalize Marxist though amidst disillusionment and economic collapse. Neo-Marxism is IN THE OXFORD DICTIONARY ON-LINE, which further demonstrates that this is not a made-up word but a widely accepted term for a school of intellectual thought. That was the main question to me, whether THIS was the term for those in the New Left who attempted to adapt Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci to the modern world. It seems that it is. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further: there is a big-fat reference dictionary for libraries called Biographical Dictionary of Neo-Marxism, (apologies for the ad link but it shows the cover) which should more or less be sufficient to end this challenge as a Speedy Keep. This is clearly recognized as THE term for a definable school of thought and thus worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information, a couple Neo-Marxist journals of interest would include New Left Review in the UK and Socialist Revolution (later Socialist Review) in the United States. I've never seen Telos, but I would bet my lunch money that it is also in this ballpark intellectually. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you're at risk of going hungry this lunchtime! For many years now Telos has been far more influenced by Carl Schmitt than anyone else, and while the degree of Schmitt's influence on Benjamin and Kirchheimer has been much discussed in recent years, nobody has proposed Schmitt as having any vicinity to neo-Marxism. AllyD (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment... The nominator was taken aback by this statement: ""There is no formal Neo-Marxist organization and seldom do people call themselves Neo-Marxists, so it is difficult to describe who belongs to this movement. Also there is no set definition as to what a Neo-Marxist is, which makes grouping and categorizing this idea even more difficult." This is actually very correct and helpful. Like some wag said about pornography, "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it." There is no organization — true fact — the term is not often used as a self-description — true fact — which makes it difficult to describe who belongs to the movement — this logically follows. Want a couple names? Erik Olin Wright. Eric Hobsbawm. E.P. Thompson. Perry Anderson. Do or did any of these self-describe as "Neo-Marxists"? Maybe not. Does that make it hard to include them in the intellectual school? Harder, for sure. Does that mean that there is no such thing as "Neo-Marxism" or that they were not members of that school, broadly construed? No. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hobsbaum? a CPGB loyalist. Thompson and Anderson? Anderson's side of their dispute c1980 was in "Arguments within English Marxism", not neo-Marxism mark you. AllyD (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another book: Neo-Marxism: The Meanings of Modern Radicalism, published by Greenwood Press in 1982. Note the date, the school of Neo-Marxism was strong more or less from the events of 1956 in Hungary and Poland, which caused soul-searching among many Western Marxists about the nature of the USSR, through the early 1990s, events which called into question the entire Marxist edifice. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more book, then I'm gonna go make french toast: Social Theory and the Frankfurt School: Neo-Marxism and the Rise of Capitalism. Yeah, it's print on demand, which impresses nobody, not a big publisher like Sharpe, Cassell, or Greenwood (cited above). Still, this should put to rest any notion that the term belongs to one author or lacks common currency. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the question is, is there really something called "neo-Marxism" that is notable enough to justify an article. If you think so, and want to write it, I'd be happy to watch and see the result, but given that people have been working on this for seven years makes me really skeptical. Also, I simply do not see The New Left Review in the same article as dissident Marxists in post-Stalin Soviet Union - this is the point I was making when I quoted the article's own admission of incoherence. I think many people you mention - e.g. Hobsbawm and Anderson - are Marxists, as are most of the people associated with the new Left Review. But I think your important point is that there whould be a place in WP for these. I agree. Now, here is what I think is the real issue: there are in fact many different forms and flavors of "Marxism." Marxism in Britain in the 1930s-1970s is different from Marxism in Germany or Italy in the 1920s which is different from Marxism in Russia in the 1880s which is different from Marxism in China in the 1950s which is different from Marxism in China in the 1960s. People working on the article on Christianity face the same kind of problem. I still propose deleting this article. Here is my proposal for moving forward: first, important individuals (Antonio Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg, and Walter Benjamin ... I would add Michael Taussig and Eric Wolf and Perry Anderson and Maurice Dobb and Eric Hobsbawm ... should each have their own articles which situate their work historically culturally and nationally. Clearly and well-defined movements like Bolshevik-Leninist, Trotskyism and The Frankfurt School should also have their own articles. But in my view, most important is a great article on Marxism which has good summaries of each of these well-defined movements, placing them in their larger theoretical/ideological context. And I think herein lies the solution to our dilemma, and I admit - but gladly, because I think it has long been an effective approach at WP - it is a provisional solution.

I do not believe that all of the people and ideas from the sources you have found that use the term "neo-Marxism" belong in the same article, and I think that some of the people and ideas in the sources you have found are not notable enough for an article of their own. Some, perhaps, do, but unless you are prepared to do the work now, I don't see appropriate articles being written about them yet. So, what should we do? I think we should do what editors working on the Christianity article and other articles that are similarly about large and heterogenous topics do. We (you, other people knowledgeable about and interested in these diverse intellectual and political movements) should work on them within the context of the Marxism article. In general, it is a wise approach to work on a main article and then spin off daughter-articles, and a highly risky approach to work the other way around. There are obviously challenges about how best to identify and delineate different intellectual and political movements. I believe that the best place to work on these challenges is with the other editors active at the Marxism article. There is the place to show the diverse influences, bring out the decisive differences, and, ultimately, decide just how notable a trend is, and how much weight to give it. If it turns out that a number of editors working at the Marxism article believe that the best way to organize this material is under the header "Neo-Marxist variant," great! And for a long time there may be just a paragraph on this variant. At some point, editors working on the article might feel that the section on Neo-Marxism is getting too big, and for good reason — that is the appropriate time to create a new article on Neo-Marxism, and it will be a good article. But it is also possible that editors collaborating at the main article will decide that there is a better way to organize and present this material. They may discover that enough reliable sources indicate that we are really talking about two or three or four variants; that these variants may have been called "neo-Marxism" by some people at some time but that there is a more common and more appropriate way to identify them. The reason I would like you to change your vote to delete is because I believe that the best place to work out these questions in a collaboration with other knowledgeable editors is at the Marxism; I would like you to change your vote to "delete" because I think the best place to incubate an article on a notable variant of Marxism is first at the Marxism article, because the editors who watch and regularly contribute to that page are the best judges of when – if – it is time to create a new article on a particular variant of Marxism. Maybe if that was the approach someone took seven years ago, we would at this point actually have a great article on neo-Marxism, or a very well-written section at the marxism article on neo-Marxism, or a few new articles on very different variants of Marxism that were allm unfortunately, at one moment in their history called "neo-Marxism. I think this is the most productive way to move forward. I think you raise great and important points, I am just suggesting that this article was an ill-conceived way to handle this and that there is a much better way. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where I do take Carrite's point is that there is arguably a neo-Marxist stream in terms of post-1956 oppositional currents in the Soviet Bloc (Budapest School, Kuroń, etc). That is hardly what the current article text is covering, but it could be repurposed if there are strong enough sources? AllyD (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per a comment above, there were strong "Neo-Marxist" sentiments within the Communist Party of Great Britain, as well as in the "Eurocommunist" parties such as Spain and Italy. Party membership need not be regarded as a barrier to inclusion of one person or another in the "Neo-Marxist" school. It strikes me as an act of revisionism, if you'll pardon the dry pun, to try and pretend that there was and is no such thing as "Neo-Marxism" and that it would be for the best if all history were run through the filter of a massively comprehensive "Marxism" article. This seems to me akin to an argument that it would sure be a lot easier to pretend that "Punk Rock" wasn't a definable sub-genre and that everything instead were run through a massive and all-comprehensive Rock'n'roll Wikipedia page. "Neo-Marxism" is a real sub-genre of Marxism, bottom line. I've gotta get ready for work, ciao now. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stubify and rewrite There is definitely things in this world that is often labeled "neo-marxist" (Slavoj Zizek' calls his own thought that for example) - it is probably not one school or group or way of thinkingg. This article is not a useful representation of what neo-Marxism might be.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The term is clearly notable but is used in a wide variety of ways. It is in my view difficult to write an article which would not be viewed by some as partial. But that is our job. Adding citations to useful sources and editing, not deleting, is in my view the way forward. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

PS: In the context of development studies - "neo-Marxist theories of development" -

* Google scholar

* Google books

seem particularly important. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

PPS some possibly useful sources:

A couple of books

Limqueco, Peter and Bruce J McFarlane (1983) Neo-Marxist theories of development, Croom Helm, New York, St. Martin's Press
Barrow, Clyde W. (1993) Critical Theories of the State: Marxist, Neo-Marxist, Post-Marxist, The University of Wisconsin Press

A well cited article:

Skocpol, T (1980) Political response to capitalist crisis: Neo-Marxist theories of the state and the case of the New Deal, Politics & Society March 1980 vol. 10 no. 2 155-201

Some articles I read long ago:

Foster-Carter,A (1973) Neo-Marxist approaches to development and underdevelopment Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 3, no1

Which includes a proper discussion of a use of the term.

And then there is a reply:

John Taylor (1974): Neo-Marxism and Underdevelopment — A sociological phantasy, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 4:1, 5-23

A couple of Encyclopedia/Dictionary Entries

McCarthy, Pat, Neo-Marxism In H. James Birx (ed.). Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Volume 4. Thousand Oaks, California. Sage Reference. 2006.
Neo-Marxism – Marshall, Gordon and Scott, John. A Dictionary of Sociology. New York. Oxford University Press. 2005.

Some nice web sources:

Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

comment But what do these books and articles say? We can't make this decision based solely on book titles. From what I have read (and I have not read all) these works are all referring to different things; the authors use the phrase "neo-" just to indicate these are new trends. That does not make it one topic for one encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the books and articles say quite a lot of interesting and different things. However the fact that there are books about this topic and entries in dictionaries and encyclopedias clearly indicates to me we should have an article. An area I know a bit about is Development Economics - and here there is an approach known as the Neo-Marxist approach. This approach is connected with - Dependency and World systems theories and its focus is on external exploitation rather than the normal "internal" exploitation of orthodox/classical marxism. Not all marxist approaches by new people would be counted as neo-marxist. In the debate we have the orthodox camp including Laclau, Brenner, Warren , and Sender & Smith and in the Neomarxist camp and the neomarxists Baran, AG Frank, Wallerstein, (the early Cardoso). The articles by A Foster-Carter and the reply by Taylor might help if you are interested. My recollection is that also in Industrial Economics a Neomarxist approach - stressing the "monopoly capitalism" (Baran and Sweezy) angle is also refered to in the literature. (Orthodox marxists might well have a more competitive capitalism in mind as their benchmark. I can see that these two (Neomarxist development and Neomarxist economics) could provide two useful sections in an expanded article on Neomarxism. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

replyI can see the reasoning behind the two articles you suggest, and this is precisely why I think this article should b deleted (and why I actually think you should vote to delete) - the manifold works people keep finding via google would not be well-served by this one article but rather by several more specific articles. Your two suggestions are actually quite constructive in my view. But both of them - along, perhaps, with others (e.g. one on revisionist Marxisms in post-Stalinist communist countries) - would displace this one, that is my point. Ask yourself, which one(s) would you be more likely to work on? Slrubenstein | Talk 06:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply: I think you might be right in that several articles might be (have been) written separately about the varieties of meanings of Neo-marxism. But this article might be usefully used as a way of assisting the reader with basically a series of alternative redirections. I think since it is a term people may look up and no single redirect would be appropriate we should therefore have an article. The article could then say something about the ambiguity and contested nature of the term and each of the different meanings should then have sections introdcuing them and links to other articles. The article to my mind should not attempt a single unified definition of the term. There were similar issues and criticism of articles I started on Applied economics and Business economics where both terms are used in a variety of ways. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, POV fork of Frankfurt School, neologism merging Frankfurt School and New Left Neologism. Not used in scholarly sources. See new left, frankfurt school, council communism, autonomism, reformism, eurocommunism. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“Not used in scholarly sources” ? And the Neo-Marxism of this source concerns some parallel world?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its an obvious neo-logism for "new-left". Try reading as an encyclopedic editor instead of a deep text searcher. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think not, "Neo-Marxism" is an older term than "New Left". Neo-Marxism arose out of a revaluation of Marx which started in the 1930s, and particularly after his earlier works emerged into wider circulation in the 1950s which revealed a more humanistic Marx. These new ideas on Marx, neo-marxism, inspired the developement of the "New Left" in the 1960s. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographic proof please. The subject of the neo-logism predating the new left does not indicate that the term pre-dates the new left. Its a non-notable neologism, it doesn't appear in the scholarly texts. See if you can find it in Leszek Kołakowski's Main Currents, I couldn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you open your other eye you may see the scholarly texts already presented above. Since Neomarxismus originated in Germany decades before the proponents of the "New Left" were even born, you may want to also check out:

Hans Heinz Holz: Strömungen und Tendenzen im Neomarxismus. Carl Hanser Verlag, München 1972
Andreas von Weiss: Neomarxismus. Die Problemdiskussion im Nachfolgemarximus der Jahre 1945 bis 1970. Karl-Alber-Verlag, Freiburg/München 1970

For the monolingual wikipedians among us, this source provides the context and precedence of "neo-marxism" in relation to the "new left". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Kolakowski's text indicates that these are not the terms used in English. Your citations are from texts after the fact, not in English. Your wikilink is to Frankfurt school and New Left which we already have articles on. The article points out that it is a non analytical category, "Since there are no closed neo-Marxist movement, no organizations, and rarely people who call themselves neo-Marxist, is a clear limitation of belonging to neo-Marxism is difficult, sometimes the use of the term is arbitrary, and are in daily political debate too often general social or unspecific positions critical of capitalism - then mostly meant as a negative evaluation - referred to as neo-Marxist." and Kolakowski, the most significant author on the varieties of Marxist ideologies, doesn't use this descriptive phrase. Kolakowski, instead, devotes a chapter to the Frankfurt school. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Leszek Kołakowski described Marxism as "the greatest fantasy of our century", so it is no surprise that he dismisses "neo-Marxism". The expression "the Frankfurt School" was a term coined in the 1960s to label a group of neo-Marxist philosophers associated with the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt. Kołakowski is right, "Neo-Marxism" isn't a movement, it is a body of ideas that departs from orthodox Marxism as rooted in the Second International. The Frankfurt School were not the only proponents of neo-Marxism, there existed other schools such as the Praxis School. On the otherhand, the New Left can be described as a movement that incorporates neo-Marxist ideas. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kołakowski's taxonomy stands as the most significant scholarly history of ideas of Marxism in English. If Kołakowski's terminology and categories ignores "neo-Marxism" and instead specifically singles out other categories, that our taxonomy and presentation of Marxism ought to be using that of Kołakowski, and not those of a few predominantly West German 1970s sociologists, and a few descriptive English uses of "neo" in tertiary sources disconnected from the core literary streams in the history of ideas of Marxism. Surprisingly enough, Kołakowski's categories accord with the standard presentations in English of the history of major Marxist schools of thought until the early 1980s. How you could describe the New Left pales in policy against how the central texts describe and order the taxonomy. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Kołakowskipedia. Eminent scholar Paul Gottfried devotes a whole chapter to NeoMarxism[19] in his book The strange death of Marxism: the European left in the new millennium, published by the University of Missouri Press. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are plenty of books and scholarly journals that discuss "neo-Marxism" as the links above show. For example, The Columbia History of Western Philosophy[20] has a chapter on "Neo-Marxism" beginning on page 721. David Ingram describes the Institute for Social Research founded in Frankfurt in 1923, aka the Frankfurt School, as the most significant school of neo-Marxist thought and Jürgen Habermas the most significant representative of neo-Marxism today. The chapter goes on to describe how neo-marxism has transformed from "a theory of radical critique and revolutionary change" to an "almost oxymoronic expression denoting a kind of antitotalizing, antitotalitarian liberalism", driven by the revelations of Stalinist Gulag, failure of the Paris revolt in 1968, the disintegration of the New Left and the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Just because the article has remained under developed is no reason for deletion. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Martin is on-point here. This is not a POV fork and the Frankfurt School is a subset of Neo-Marxism, broadly construed. Deficiencies in the article can be corrected through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are just using "neo" to say that it is a new development. You are taking an adjective and turning it into a name. This is a mistake many people here, who seem to be reading snippets of texts rather than bodies of literature, are making. Are you sure you are not misinterpreting the use of "neo-Marxism" here by taking it out of context? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so. Neo-marxism appears to have defined political and social characteristics as the source presented by Miacek below shows. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep as google books results reveal (just a random hit), the term is often used in intellectual discourse (Martin just referred to a number of Neo-Marxist schools of thought above, including - but not confined to - the Frankfurt school. The term 'neo-Marxism' was used even in the USSR (mostly to refer to the same thinkers).Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, although the article as it stands now is truly appalling, it seems to me that there is enough evidence that the term is used in scholarly contexts and needs a (brief) encyclopaedia article. If the article is deleted, it might be worth redirecting to Western Marxism. I also think that the relationship of neo-Marxism to Stalinism in article/above is a red herring, as arguably some neo-Marxists were also Stalinists. I think the relevant relationship is to orthodox Marxism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am skeptical that we can come to a lasting consensus on the meaning of this term. While that is the case maintaining the page is always going to be problematic. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2011 (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. Danger (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Kabeer Haidary[edit]

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

nothing establishing notablity of this person St8fan (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After quite a bit of searching, I could not find any coverage of the subject by independent reliable sources. Nsk92 (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not apparent. Much of the article seems a copy of the subject's web site. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. He does appear to be a somewhat well-known Qāriʾ (Koran reciter); there are several YouTube videos featuring him: [21], [22], [23]. Also, this:[24] OTOH, it's hard to tell if some of these TV appearances are from media sources significant enough to count as reliable, independent, third-party sources. In any case, the article is largely undocumented. --Chonak (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Youtube does not qualify as a reliable source per WP:V, and cannot be used for establishing notability. If there are any sources passing WP:V covering him, they are yet to be produced. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Chonak is correct. The Koran is shorter than the bible, and kids compete to be the young memory prodigy who can memorize the whole Koran. One of the Guantanamo captives had been a memory prodigy in his youth, who traveled around reciting the Koran, to heads of State. I gather that photogenic memory prodigies, who have good speaking voices, and a good agent, can earn quite a bit of coin. I gather there are awards, or informal gifts for the prodigy.
It is possible references can be found to substantiate Abdul Kabeer Haidary`s notability. Geo Swan (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless such references, passing WP:V requirements and independent of the subject, are actually found and produced, this is just a speculation. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an unambiguous copyright infringement of this, published prior to the create date of this article, and carrying all rights reserved notice. Steamroller Assault (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nsk92, Steamroller Assault unless someone comes actually up with refs that satisfy WP:GNG. In any way the copyvio needs to be removed as quickly as possible. IQinn (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this advice, I have tagged the article itself for speedy deletion, as it is entirely copied from the source website. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Daksh Welfare & Charitable Society[edit]

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

A small charity made in March 2011 in India is not notable. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 09:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of media coverage. I didn't find any notable mentions on Google and Yahoo except for a YellowPages entry. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AfD notice was removed by original editor 10:20 17 July 2011 with edit summary "sir I started making this article 5 minutes before and it is still under construction please don't paste any tag". It was replaced, and removed again by an Ip with no edit summary at 15:59 on 17 July, replaced, removed again. I've replaced it just now. Bringing to AfD seems a little premature, but as it's in the system it needs to be treated correctly, not just by removing the AfD template. PamD (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no appearance of notability. PamD (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep !votes have failed to provide anything other than asserting this is one member of a category of software, some of which have articles. This is not notability. Courcelles 23:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PDFZilla[edit]

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

Was PROD'd as "No indication of WP:notability. References given are either from the company that produces it or download sites that sell it. Seems spammy." I agree with this (except for the spam part, I don't assert that it is spam, but rather that it is not notable), hence the AfD. SudoGhost ™ 09:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say, KEEP. This article shouldn't be deleted but rather expanded. It holds the same WP:NOTE as these other PDF readers Acrobat_Reader PDF_reader Portable Document Format As we can see, there is a list of PDF readers here, List of PDF software. It's obviously a legitimate PDF reader and, It seems to be written without the intention of wanton spam. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, there's not even an assertion of notability in the article, and no reliable third-party sources to show notability, only links to the product's website and download mirrors. That other PDF software exists does not make this one notable. It most certainly does not have the same notability as Acrobat Reader. - SudoGhost ™ 09:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I googled it and it returns a whole lot of hits. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS are not a test of notability. - SudoGhost ™ 09:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned google hits as a way for a test under WP:WEIGHT. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT is not for establishing the notability of an article, but for determining the NPOV of content within an article. - SudoGhost ™ 09:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned WP:WEIGHT Note** this was taken from WP:NNC. And, this article meets WP:FAILN and deletion should be of last resort. I will place a notability tag on the article to see if there is any help out there. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the speedy deletion was a bit rushed. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not submitted for speedy deletion (to my knowledge, unless this is a recreated speedy). I did make an attempt to find sources to establish notability, for my part I found none. If notability can be established, the article can certainly be recreated, but this article is not notable. Perhaps it should be moved into the creator's userspace. - SudoGhost ™ 10:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on the speedy delete. Now, what constitutes notability for PDFZilla? A reliable WP:SOURCE? All of these are third party reviews and, they are from A reliable sources. Here are a few, even though they offer downloads. http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,75753/description.html, http://dottech.org/gotdreviews/20672/, http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/PDFZilla-Review-102241.shtml, http://www.softsea.com/review/PDFZilla.html Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The key issue here is the lack of independent, reliable sources for what is essentially an advert. Most of the sources are Self-published and the references for awards are from companies that sell the product therefore lacking reliability and independence. It is difficult to find any independent sources, let alone "Multiple reliable, independent sources" per WP:notability. --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as advertising/promotional. No indications of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of media coverage. All I could having to do with coverage is this PCWorld review....not enough to sustain this article, which would need to be fixed to meet Wikipedia guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on the ground of consistency. There are several PDF readers listed in Category:PDF readers and I don't see why this one should be singled out for deletion. "Other stuff exists" is not necessarily a justification for deletion. Quote from Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Biscuittin (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be a case of that being used correctly. The only basis of your keep rationale seems to be that other PDF readers exist. The others have established notability; this does not. - Sudo Ghost 10:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PDFZilla has only been around for 2 months so it has not had time to establish notability. You are discriminating against new products in favour of long-established ones. Note - I have no connection with PDFZilla. Biscuittin (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Has already been deleted. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parabolic Window[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Google does not back up claims. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This is a recreation (shortly to be deleted) of the article being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parabolic window. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Whealton[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. No particularly good independent secondary sources available, as far as I can tell. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of enough notable mentions aside from the Star News article. I didn't get any good sources on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's more coverage in the Star News than is already cited in the article, but I didn't find anything in any other sources, and I think it's too localized for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2011 (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 as HOAX. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 03:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parabolic window[edit]

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

Prodded with: "unreferenced original research. No sources found". I will go further and suggest hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a hoax article. I've read Beowolf I don't recall any mention of bodybuilding or protein absorption! HominidMachinae (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per my original PROD rationale, per HominidMachinae, and per db-hoax. The images on the page have nothing to do with it. And 'after eating a cow' is an obvious joke. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This has been recreated again at Parabolic Window (already deleted CSD A10) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I spent some time searching on the off-chance that there was something genuine here written up in a silly way, but no. There are parabolic windows about, but they are to do with frequency estimation. No sign of Shaw and Blonne. I would have expected it to be Desperate Dan rather than Beowulf who built up his strength by eating cows in parabolic windows. JohnCD (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as feeble hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2011 (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. Rlendog (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Showtime 75MAX Trophy, 1st Round - Tilburg[edit]

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

also nominating from the same series of 2005:

all three articles are just results listing, and do not have indepth third party coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of these events were held by a large promotion and feature notable fighters. -- WölffReik (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notable fighters does not meet automatic notability. please provide evidence of third party sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability is shown and the articles lack good sources. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No assertion of notability. Not all kickboxing cards are sufficiently notable for their own page. Fails all sections of WP:EVENT. BusterD (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2011 (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Kirkby[edit]

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

Contested prod. This BLP has been here for almost three years without any sources. The subject, an actor who appears to have only had minor roles, does not appear to be notable - no significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RS is not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete , credited as an actor in numerous tv programs such as http://digiguide.tv/programme/Childrens/Gigglebiz/716570/, http://theslammer.dabungalowonline.com/, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mvgpr, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mztgf, http://www.rexfeatures.com/search/?kw=ian%20kirkby&ord=N. I'm sure there are more sources, but nothing of significance, fails WP:NACTOR. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:36, 23 July 2011 (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Do It ... Summer 1990[edit]

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

Non-notable comp. Prod was denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS – Google search shows no reliable sources covering the album. — Yk ʏк yƙ talk ~ contrib 14:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, completely unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I have the compilation (probably showing my age here), and can verify that the list in this article is consistent with its back cover, this is more the territory of Discogs than Wikipedia. Very few Australian compilation albums would be notable in any meaningful sense, despite having charted on ARIA's Compilation Chart and earning multiple platinum awards. Orderinchaos 19:46, 23 July 2011 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fenn School[edit]

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

Seems like just another private school. It does serve grade 9, but in a context more like a junior high school than a high school. Redirect or delete. Raymie (t • c) 07:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The generally accepted threshold for a high school is Grade 10 so the description as a 'junior high school' or 'middle school' is fine. TerriersFan (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See common outcomes. This is an elementary/middle school and no notability is demonstrated. If not deleted, it needs to be severely shortened as it reads like a school prospectus at the moment. asnac (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at Education in the United States, Grade 9 equates to children aged 14-15. If this school was in the United Kingdom, then the school would be classed as a secondary (US = High) school, and would be notable. It seems that WP:SCHOOLS may need to revise its notability criteria to create a uniform standard worldwide. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This would go against WP:NHS - 'A high school is defined as a school that provides the earliest recognized certification of educational attainment, whether referred to as a school leaving certificate, high school diploma, High School Leaving Certificate, General Certificate of Secondary Education, or IB Diploma Programme.'. This school isn't a high school. asnac (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In some public school districts, junior high or middle schools — not secondary institutions like high schools — serve grade 9. A major Arizona school district recently moved its 9th graders back to high schools after 27 years of serving them in their junior highs. In some special cases, entire campuses are dedicated to 9th grade, usually due to capacity issues (see Humble High School — that district moved its ninth graders into new high school space from two dedicated campuses. One became a middle school and the other a new high school.) This institution serves grade 9 in a context more like a junior high than a senior high school. Raymie (t • c) 23:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I should have put a question mark after "High" above. My argument still holds, WP:NHS does not give a uniform level of notability worldwide. I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:Schools. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - NHS is not a rule. It's the fifth effort in as many years to convince inexperienced editors that there's some sort of magical notability rule for schools that exempts them from the actual rules if the students are teenagers. The actual rules can be found at WP:ORG and WP:NRVE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - high schools are generally notable, and in the case of a high school, the assumption is that the article should be given time to develop. This is clearly not a high school. That said, even elementary or middle schools may be notable, but since this article has absolutely no referencing to demonstrate the nature of notability, I must assume at this time it is not notable. I am open to consider a claim of notability, but none is established here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes some middle schools are notable, but this one clearly is not, there are no reliable independent resources (I am not counting an (clearly biased) article written in the NYT by a teacher of the school expressing an opinion as reliable). As such I cannot see that at this time this article meets the notability criteria, I am always open to reconsider if new sources come to light, however. Glanis^Talk 21:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're mentioned in the New York Time their emergency alert system. The Boston Globe interviews at teacher on audio books. In 1940, they were a leader in a community fundraiser. The founder retired in 1960. He died in 1988. They've got a marching band. The problem with the list of alumni and teachers is going to be narrowing it down, not proving that people attended it. The society columns in the older newspapers list dozens of people. This is not difficult. If you all would stop getting hung up on how old the students are, and actually look for evidence of notability, then you would see that it's perfectly obvious that this school is not merely notable, but actually famous. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With politeness, WhatamIdoing, I disagree with your findings. According to WP:GNG (quote): Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Of the sources that you have provided, not one of them addresses the school directly and in detail. The emergency alert system article mentions the school once in the very last paragraph after talking specifically about safety systems. The Book on audio article is about a book, where one woman happened to work at the school who was being interviewed about said book. The other two articles address the founder of the school, not the school. The final article is a brief blurb about the marching band raising money. None of these articles establishes notability in the least definition of "significant coverage".

Furthermore, when you say: This is not difficult. If you all would stop getting hung up on how old the students are, and actually look for evidence of notability, then you would see that it's perfectly obvious that this school is not merely notable, but actually famous, I appreciate that there will be differing opinions on this matter, but it is out of line to imply that anyone with a contrary opinion as being lazy, or that we are somehow being ageist. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine consensus. You have your opinion, and others have theirs, and have an equal right to it without being mocked. Everyone here has explained themselves without mocking another opinion, and I would ask that you stick to presenting their case or refuting a case ... leave editors out of this! LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the basics: Do you have a paid subscription to the Boston Globe? And if you don't, how exactly are you deciding how much information about the school is in the (dozens of) articles about the school in that paper? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting strictly on the six articles that you provided as evidence of notability. If there are more out there, please bring them forward. Speaking for myself (and I hope everyone else), we are open-minded ... if there are significant, reliable, independent sources which meet the criteria for establishing notability, we'll look a them, and I suspect if that is met, we would all change our input. However, in the absence of those sources, the subject is non-notable, and shouldn't be the subject of an article. Just keep in mind, at least as a few of us have looked at the articles you have presented, they don't meet the "significant" threshold, so more articles like that really won't cut it (at least with those so far leaning toward "delete". LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing has added a search link, which appears to show about 84 hits in the Boston Globe for the school. I invite anyone to joining me and assessing if the articles appear to meet the significance threshold to meet notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm asking a simple, yes-or-no question about those links: For the Boston Globe articles, did you read the WHOLE articles, or just the (free) BEGINNINGS of the articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only read what was available, however, it is rarely necessary to read more than a short amount to determine if the school is the direct subject of the article, or not. It would be exceptionally odd for any journalist to not at least mention the direct topic of the article in the first few paragraphs. It could happen, but it is rare. To be used as a source, the subject needn't be the subject of the article, however, to establish notability, it pretty much has to be. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read the actual guideline at WP:CORPDEPTH. To be useful for notability purposes, the source must talk directly about the subject—but it need not be the primary or sole subject of the article. The actual guideline says, "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." This means that small bits of information scattered about dozens of separate publications can actually add up to the equivalent of a smaller number of longer sources (assuming—as they do in this instance—that these sources all say different things about the school. A hundred sources that all repeat the same fact is counted as one source).

So you have rejected sources based on your ignorance of their contents, a guess that they don't say much, and an erroneous belief about how the guidelines say you should address this situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) I'm sorry that you feel that I am ignorant. Quoting from ORG:
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.
Trivial coverage is not enough to establish notability. All of the sources in theBoston Globe search seemed trivial. I found three that seemed like they might be worthy of consideration. Ultimately, that is going to be the point of this discussion: are there sufficient non-trivial sources to meet notability? If you feel that I missed any non-trivial sources, please list them ... if you feel that in our inability to see the whole article ... please give some partial quotes and put these articles in context. ... or add the sources to the article and expand the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, first on the question of whether it's a 'high school', the school itself says that it prepares its students for high schools, so clearly it is not a high school itself. Notability would be rare for a middle school, though we'd all be happy to keep this article if someone can provide sources that show its notability according to WP guidelines, in particular those highlighted by LonelyBeacon. I've been trawling for 'significant coverage'; the first few pages thrown up by Google give what you'd expect of lots of schools - educational websites and directories, own publicity etc., but nothing independent that meets the 'significant coverage' gold standard. News search doesn't help either. asnac (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability under the actual guideline, which is ORG, is pretty common for middle schools. It's only under the "magic high school exemption" proposal, which the community has repeatedly rejected, that a middle school is not treated exactly the same as any other school. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have reviewed the 84 or so hits that WhatamIdoing has provided. My thoughts are that a vast majority of the articles are trivial hits (obituaries of alumni, tryouts for plays, films playing at the school, articles about people who attend(ed) or worked at the school). I found three articles that didn't fit those descriptions:

[25] - this is an article about the controversy regarding the installation of artificial turf at the school

[26] - I am pretty sure this will not establish notability since it is an Op-Ed piece written by a teacher from the school.

[27] - This is about a science course on birds taught at the school, including the construction of bird boxes at the school.

As I see it there are two articles that might fit the bill. This is one person's opinion, so I would hope others check these out and submit their thoughts as well. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the school has not recieved significant coverage from published independent sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As LonelyBeacon has confirmed, the article is lacking the depth of coverage required in WP:GNG, and it clearly doesn't fit into the yes-it-is-not-a-guideline notability standards of WP:SCH, which generally gives exemptions for high schools and Blue Ribbon schools. tedder (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of cat breeds. (and can then be deleted per Flatscan's comment) Black Kite (t) (c) 11:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of cat breeds originating in the United States[edit]

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

Delete. This page looks like a direct cut and paste of the category and as such serves no extra purpose on Wikipedia. If it were to summarise the main points about each of the cat breeds it would be of more use but I don't think that is needed at this stage. Note that I created the Cats in the United States article earlier today. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of cat breeds. It is redundant to the main list but currently contains entries not found there such as polydactyl cat. Warden (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And then delete? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An edit history merger would be needed before deletion of the redundant redirect title. Warden (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list content might fall under WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, "Simple, non-creative lists of information". The inclusion criteria are factual, not creative. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge non-duplicate items to list of cat breeds. Anna ^talk 20:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original version, despite its odd formatting, was not an exact copy of Category:Cat breeds originating in the United States. It included Polydactyl cat piped to American Polydactyl, which did not include that category until it was added in June. The sourcing at Polydactyl cat#Breeding seems weak – ~~I'm not sure that they are recognized breeds~~. List of cat breeds has contained an entry for American Polydactyl at least as far back as December 2008. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Maintenance nightmare. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:51, 23 July 2011 (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 without prejudice. The entire text of this article is "Upstream Delta Camp (81°0′S 140°0′W) is located in Antarctica" and that's literally all she wrote so I don't think there's anything to merge. However if somebody does find sources and is willing to write a comprehensive article about this camp then more power to them. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upstream Delta Camp[edit]

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

I *hate* AfD'ing geographical articles - if it's a place, it's almost always notable. But there are exceptions. Upstream Delta Camp is apparently "in Antarctica". No searched online or in print seem to indicate any more than that. It's a place, but that's about all that can be said about it. Is that enough for an article - one that will never grow beyond a bald set of coordinates? Grutness...wha? 06:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would support keeping if I could find anything of note about this place - that some notable expedition stayed there, that there is something worth saying about the geology or the wildlife, or something. Instead I find nothing. It truly seems nothing more than three words on a map. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article Antarctic field camps, which contains a list that this could be added to. All references I can find are for 1998-1999 and it seems likely that this was a temporary camp used for one season. Peter E. James (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Smerging it there would definitely be a reasonable alternative to outright deletion. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merging and redirecting to Antarctic field camps] seems most appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2011 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gihan Sami Soliman[edit]

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

Autobiography and promotional. Author created multiple pages about projects. Though admirable, only sources that I can find are ones belonging to author, social media sites, and other websites that would represent a COI. Also, author continued to add HTML hyperlinks within article text to link back to her own websites. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from author: External links were added for verification of notability and link to the auther's website deleted.

a special consideration needs to be made of the regime of corruption that had been ruling Egypt for 30 years and supressing any kind of real reform coming from the community which might explain the scarcity of research and knowledge on the topic.

Here are some facts about the education in Egypt that shows the need for reform 1- students are required to pass the SAT test with a minimum score of 1440 and that score forms 60% of the qualifying grades for college. Which is a HUGE power wasted in preparation of a non-achievement test on the other hand no other achievement tests are required to graduate or enter college.

National Quality Assurance NAQAAE allocated a whole quality standard for curriculum design while the one who designs the national curriculum is the Ministry of Education the Accrediting association are foreign ones which means they have no real perspective of the king of community participation needed.

Low ranking of Egyptina Universities inspite of all the govermental talk about reform and quality assurance. * Stated in the article that Gihan Sami Soliman reads جيهان سامي سليمان and you can find related articles on her in Arabic (local media) where reform is needed and is taking place.

Also the article has no promotional material about any profitable business of any sort, it's all about reform achieved by volunteers. Please re-consider the value of this article as a good start of educational reform in Egypt coming from educators...Thank you G.S. Soliman (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC) [Special:Contributions/Doveye71|contribs]]) 06:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless better sources can be found - I went through it and once you've deleted the material that is not specifically about the individual concerned, the spammy non-references what you are left with is the CV of someone who does not seem to be notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

looking further into this, most of the 'international' organisations that this individual is running or is involved in seems to simply a series of unfinished and badly designed websites. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article was created on July 16, 2011. That was yesterday. I think we need to allow some time, perhaps two weeks, to address the related issues. G.S. Soliman i.e. G.S. Soliman (talk) will better appreciate the process, if we take our time. And show our good will to a newbie. I have questions about the news agency cited. Is there anyway to find how reliable the agency is. Does it have a reputaton in Egypt? G.S. Soliman help us help the article. It is better to work with editors who don't have a conflict of interest in the article. Don't give up. Let's do this a correctly as possible following Wikipedia rules. Also, remember an article that enters a debate for survival, it it survives, it is usually better because of the "fight". DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Just a reminder, AfDs are not intended to force cleanup. This is a discussion to determine whether or not the subject is notable. That means that if there are suitable references out there that satisfy WP:N, they don't have to be added for the article for it to be kept. In short, we can't just wait for people to add references if they can't even provide evidence that they exist. If anyone has information that can "address the related issues", this is the place and time to share it with everyone. If you don't and the article is deleted, it can always be brought back if anyone ends up being able to address the issues. OlYeller^Talktome 18:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have investigated the possibility of the subject fulfilling three notability guidelines: WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:PROF. Of course, the subject would only need to fulfill one (or another that I haven't thought of) to be considered notable. My findings are below.
- WP:GNG - A Google News search and Google News Archive search for any variation of "Gihan Sami Soliman" produces no references (i.e. "Gihan Sami Soliman", "Gihan Soliman", and Gihan Sami Soliman). The only coverage I could find was this translated from Spanish via Google Translate. The article, in my opinion, was published by a reliable source but does not constitute reliable coverage as it is significant coverage of an event and not of the subject of the article (it could be used to establish notability for an article of the event where the Soliman is listed but not much else). The 4 websites listed in the article's reference area ([28][29][30][31]) do nothing to help establish notability. The first three don't mention the subject (not significant coverage) and the fourth is her own website (not independent). The subject's personal website provided no leads for establishing notability but does raise some copyright infringement issues. In short, I can not find enough coverage for the subject to satisfy WP:GNG. OlYeller^Talktome 18:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO - Similar to my search above, the only coverage of the subjects work, in my opinion, don't fulfill WP:ARTIST (subsection of WP:BIO). The closest the subject comes is on point three and the collective work covered in the article above isn't enough. OlYeller^Talktome 18:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF - As the "the head of Port Said American School, Zamalek", the subject may be an academic. The school does not have an official website. From the information on this website, it appears to be a private high school and while there is no specific notability guideline for school, I follow the common belief that high schools are notable (this only matters to me because I would have stopped there if it was anything less). There are other teaching/training activities listed but I don't feel that any of them could be used to establish notability. The closest the subject comes to satisfying WP:PROF is on point seven which states that a person is notable if they, "[have] held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society" but this school is in no way a "major" academic institution. In short, I can not see how the subject could satisfy WP:PROF. OlYeller^Talktome 18:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I don't believe that the subject has fulfilled any of these guidelines and I don't see how they would satisfy any other, I have !voted Delete. I've attempted to be as thorough as possible for the sake of the author (a new user) and anyone else who might not fully understand WP:N and how this process works. OlYeller^Talktome 18:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should mention, I'm not confident that Google would find every reference published online about the subject (due to recent events in Egypt and language issues). I'm open to changing my opinion based on newly discovered information. OlYeller^Talktome 18:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination was on the grounds of notability. The subject may well be involved in praiseworthy reform of institutions, but it's not Wikipedia's place to support this by not adhering to the established editorial practices. There is patent conflict of interest and a lack of demonstration of notability. If more time is needed, as suggested by DonaldRichardSands, then I would advise taking the article down and improving it by showing notability. asnac (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it doesn't look good for the survival of the Gihan Sami Soliman article because of its apparent failing the Notability test. It is possible to establish a Sandbox article where the interested editor can work on an article until it meets the Wikipedia tests. If someone starts such a Sandbox article, please let us know. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the closing admin (assuming the result is Delete) to userfy the article for you. OlYeller^Talktome 19:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but pls. have a look at my last edit .. it might work this time G.S. Soliman (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - Had I come across this as a new page, I would have tagged it as a WP:G11. Is there any reason not to at this point? The COI seems to be getting out of hand and we simply seem to be fighting fires to keep this from being an unambiguous advertorial. Is there anyone besides the author that would oppose a G11 speedy deletion? OlYeller^Talktome 20:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with this, except that letting it conclude at AfD gives additional rationale for CSD if it is recreated. In light of the author's insistence to continue editing in spite of all the work, suggestions, and advice given, I strongly feel she should be blocked from further editing. Editors who ignore established guidelines and advice from seasoned editors are subject to being blocked. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 20:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir .. I didn't insist .. I'm just new to editing Wikipedia .. apologies G.S. Soliman (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What harm is there in taking the extra few days in helping Doveye71 see how Wikipedia's rules work. I think the Block suggestion is unwarranted. Many of us have met editors who deserved being block, Doveye71 has no such track record with Wikipedia. This article up for discussion has some hurdles seemingly insurmountable. Of course, Wikipedia has many faces, some stern, some indulgent, with many in between. Doveye71, let this play out. Your work for your country must continue whatever happens here at Wikipedia. I continue to recommnend that you consider developing a Sandbox approach to the article. If you are interested in such an approach, let us know. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK ..I am interested with gratitude..Thanks G.S. Soliman (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The seven days of the AfD is long enough to find reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hello since I'm being warned not to edit the article my I propose this link below(it will need translation)as an evidence that Port Said American School( devision of the umbrella Port Said schools, Zamalek ) is a major educational institute in Cairo http://ahramdigital.org.eg/Community.aspx?Serial=518754 (noting that Al Ahram is the most prestigious media organization in Egypt) Thank you G.S. Soliman (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs)

Comment- Yesterday, the article's editor agreed to not further edit the autobiographical article, but today has apparently recanted that by making additional edits, including re-adding external links to the article. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and shows no prospect of meeting it anytime soon. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OlYeller21. No evidence of notability. No Google hits that are independent of the subject of this autobiography. -- 202.124.72.14 (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of media coverage. I didn't see any notable sources on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is the head of a major school and she seems to have made a notable contribution to advancing the quality of education in her country. The events are recent but influential as Egypt has gone through prolonged phases of corruption, and reform is now getting to be possible by young community leaders. Mazenomda (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is a program coordinator, and headship only confers notability under WP:Prof#C6 of a major academic institution, which a secondary school is not. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Mazenomda, Xxanthippe is correct. Did you read any of the rest of this AfD or just come in guns blazing? OlYeller^Talktome 13:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no gun blazing or anything, I just think there should be some consideration to her being an educational leader of some significance and employing this to make some reform .. well she's the owner of several websites that call for reform and the intellectual property of Egypt's got Talents as the pictures show, actually, I think she should be listed under a category of social entrepreneurs in her country,if there is such category, not by any means as a super academic person. I just wanted to share my point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment borders on abuse of editing privileges. The comment is made by the author of this autobiography, yet written as a third person. Once signbot attributed the comment to the author, the author deleted it. I reverted the deletion to preserve the evidence of tampering with an AfD discussion. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 13:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user Mazenomda, an WP:SPA, came here and !voted to keep with, in my opinion, a very poor reason. Doveye71, the subject of the article in question, replied as if she wrote the Mazenomda !vote then attempted to cover her tracks by removing the comment. I'm going to initiate an WP:SPI. Several people have spent a good deal of time trying to help Doveye71 with this article and help her understand the policies and guidelines of WP and to attempt to sock at this point, after agreeing not to edit the article then socking, I don't think there's any other avenue to pursue here. OlYeller^Talktome 14:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you keep deleting my comment .. mazenomda deleted an article for me before and i was just defending him for his point of you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about???? YOU deleted your OWN comment!! No one else did that!! I restored your comment because it was suspicious. And what is this about mazenomda deleting an article??? Only Admins can delete articles. This entire situation has been the most bizarre I have ever been involved in on WP. I'm with ya, OlYeller. Something is very suspicious about this entire thing. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote a reply for him in first person as if you were him then tried to remove the response. You impersonated another person and attempted to change the outcome of an AfD. I've opened a sock-puppetry investigation regarding your edits here. No one deleted your comment. You did and Jsfouche restored it. OlYeller^Talktome 14:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look you keep deleting my reply.. he deleted a page by nominated it for deletion .. I don't know how you can check that but I know you can — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what are you talking about? What comment has been deleted?? Look at the page history. No one deleted your comment, except yourself. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is deleting your replies. Feel free to check the history. If I had to guess, you're hitting edit conflicts because multiple people are attempting to post at the same time. The page you're referring to is this which was immediately declined. He's never edited a page that you have.

Dove, at this point, there's only one question for you to answer: Why did you impersonate another editor then attempt to delete the comment? Please don't insult anyone's intelligence by claiming that you didn't because it's all very clear. You replied in first person to reply as another user then deleted the comment. Again, why? OlYeller^Talktome 14:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings up another concern. Why would you ask another editor "to delete an article for me"? What does that mean? Why did you want it deleted, and why did you ask someone else to do it for you?? You do realize that articles are not deleted "for someone", they are deleted because they either meet criteria for speedy deletion, they are proposed as uncontested deletions, or they are discussed and deleted by consensus at AfD like this one. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied as a fisrt person cuz I'm a first person and the article subject is a third person.. isn't this what you keep telling me to do ? look I'm not an English native speaker and might not be perfect in expressing myself .. and i was defending mazenomda as not fire blazing because he seems to be fond of nominating pages for deletion that's why I was flattered by his attempt to save the article .. about the deletion .. I don't know how I got it deleted and how am I getting my comments here deleted as I try to post them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did .. it was (Fungi of Egypt and North Africa) .. I spent days and days working on it and it was gone overnight..you as admins can detect that, can't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

his talk page [32] with evidence of having tried to delete the "Fungi ..." page and one of the admins here declined his claim then but it was gone anyway.

This makes no sense: "I replied as a fisrt person cuz I'm a first person and the article subject is a third person". No one here is obligated to help you. We've exhaustively tried and you never seem to understand which may be due to a language barrier. So you're either attempting to mislead and should stop editing here or you can't speak English in a way that you can be helpful and should find your language's WP to edit. I'm done here. The AfD will conclude on its own and so will the SPI. Good luck. OlYeller^Talktome 17:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why is this getting like personal? why are you attacking me? I have given you the evidence that the person you claim I'm personifying has tried to destroy my work before and I'm trying to explain why I talked about the subject of the article in the third person .. no one is obliged to help me and no one is .. I thought this page was for discussing the article on objective grounds.. I do not know why you exert all these efforts editing in Wikipedia and guiding people but I don't think it's because of friendship or anything personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI confirmed via checkuser that Mazenomda and Doveye71 are the same person. OlYeller^Talktome 03:13, 25 July 2011 (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. Nomination was withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Army Public School, Binnaguri[edit]

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

~~Unremarkable school~~ Ryan Vesey contribs 04:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I withdraw my nomination Speedy keep per below Ryan Vesey contribs 21:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not familiar with Indian education, but this serves enough grades that it may be secondary (need clarification), satisfying our notability guidelines. Needs work though. Keep. Raymie (t • c) 06:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Educates to Grade 12 so it is a senior high school. The reasons why we keep high schools are given in WP:NHS. In addition, as an Army secondary school, it is unusual and that adds notability. We need to avoid systemic bias and since Indian schools have a poor Internet presence time needs to be given for local sources to be found. TerriersFan (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. This is a high school and it is notable per editor consensus and WP:NHS. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yo! Rap Hits[edit]

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

Obscure comp, prod was denied —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2011 (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 Withdraw, article has been translated. Jac16888 ^Talk 14:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMK St Peter Bundu Kuala Penyu, Sabah, Malaysia[edit]

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

Has been listed at WP:PNT for two weeks without progress, prod declined by user unaware of standard practice in this situation. Jac16888 ^Talk 02:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the standard practice you are referring to? Wikipedia seems to be inclined towards keeping high school articles (WP:NHS). — Yk ʏк yƙ talk ~ contrib 14:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link. Standard practice for articles that are not in English is that they are tagged with {{notenglish}} and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. If they are not translated within 2 weeks they are nominated for deletion, that's been the practice for years now--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've translated some of it and removed the non-English sections. Should be good enough for a keep now under WP:NHS. For others' reference, this was the version nominated for deletion. — Yk ʏк yƙ talk ~ contrib 14:41, 17 July 2011 (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.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2011 (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 merge to List of The Sopranos characters. Given we have an obvious merge target, using the deletion tool here is rather unsuitable. Disagreements, feel free to take them straight to WP:DRV, but this is a case where a clear alternative to deletion is poorly considered by the discussion. Courcelles 23:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Filone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is a summary-only description of works completely unreferenced to any reliable, third-party sources and has been for over five and a half years. IAW WP:BEFORE, this character appeared in only two episodes (per the article), and what few reliable sources I've found are all simply referencing the plot as already present in the article. — Fourthords | =/\= | 01:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Fourthords | =/\= | 01:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and the content of the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article does not have verifiability because it has no sources, so I believe that there is nothing worth keeping. Jfgslo (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the appropriate Sopranos character list. While the character apparently lacks the stature for a stand-alone article, there's plainly no basis for removing the content entirely and punching a hole in the otherwise comprehensive treatment of the notable fictional work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider that, but the character only appears in two episodes and there're no reliable secondary sources for anything outside the plot of those stories. Any list entry would simply be duplicating the content at "Denial, Anger, Acceptance" and "The Legend of Tennessee Moltisanti" (which themselves are lacking any reliable sourcing at all). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RS is not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's been a longstanding working consensus that it's acceptable to source in-universe content for fictional works to the fictional works themselves, and that no specific citations are required. There are thousands of articles which follow this practice. I find it odd that we've got a push going on to require more rigorous sourcing for article about fictional characters on fictional television shows than we do for living persons on "reality" TV shows; note, for example, the current state of the article on Big Brother 13 (U.S.), which mixes large chunks of unsourced content regard the behavior of living persons on the show, content referenced only to the episodes of the show itself, and, occasionally, sourced content regarding what living persons said or did. If this kind of sourcing satisfies the rigorous requirements of BLP, as by sad consensus it has in the past, then the widespread practice of sourcing fictional content to the relevant fictional works would hardly be inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 01:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dianoitika proikismenos anthropous[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIC Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dictionary definition, possible original research. No sources whatsoever. JIP | Talk 08:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite a dictionary definition, nor WP:OR, but it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably an attempt at introducing a neologism, and badly spelled at that. I am not aware of this term being used in a technical manner even in Greek. Constantine ✍ 20:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS is not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and no indication of notability. I did a Google search and couldn't find anything that could pass for a source. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:46, 23 July 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dario (Singer)[edit]

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

All but one of the references gave me a dead link, and the one source that did work was just a promotional one. I have been unable to find any reliable sources on the subject. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep I can't find anything on the person, however let's give the author a little more time and "MAYBE" they can provide reliable sources. If not, then go right ahead. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything online that indicates notability. asnac (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 01:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remus Pricopie[edit]

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

An impressive résumé, to be sure, but the subject fails all relevant notability criteria.

He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. He was never elected to any position, and at the Education Ministry, he was a mere State Secretary, not a Minister — one of two or perhaps four people holding the position simultaneously. (For precisely how he fit into the ministry's structure, click "Descarcă" here; he was a "secretar de stat".) A few Romanian state secretaries are notable due to press coverage/academic or legal work, such as this guy, but as a general rule, they tend not to be notable, unlike ministers.

As far as I can tell, he doesn't meet any of the WP:PROF criteria. If someone wants to correct me on this, fine, but let's make claims of academic notability from reliable sources, not an unreferenced CV.

I don't see him meeting the general biographical requirements either. What I find most telling is that in the main Romanian newspapers, he receives scant coverage, and when he was covered, it was usually just a quote he gave to the press here and there, nothing substantial or about him; nothing that could be used to write an actual article, which this is not. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:PROF criteria. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aries Olympus (rapper)[edit]

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

Unnotable rapper; the article has three sources, at the moment, none of them reliable Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable musician with a significant conflict of interest in the author very likeley being the subject of the article. No independent reliable sources to back up the BLP. Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Gordon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

dubious notability really a stretch, obvious COI issues. note first afd closed no consensus Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Wired article and Ain't It Cool News article mention him sufficiently, he is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.10.219 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed sources and information from the article that was purely promotional or asserted notability based on an unreliable or non-independent source. There are a few IMDB references I've left on there because they support WP:V for some of the films produced. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Travis is a notable webseries creator Showzampa (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2011 (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 Under the Western Freeway. (any useful information can be merged across) Black Kite (t) (c) 11:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Machines Are Not She[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Under the Western Freeway - if it was a free EP that came with the album it should be included in the album article.--Michig (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grandaddy. Rlendog (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2011 (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Art Factory[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grandaddy.--Michig (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grandaddy Stuartyeates (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2011 (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded Live Amongst Friends and Fidget[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grandaddy.--Michig (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grandaddy or Delete completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2011 (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live @ Adelphia[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cat Empire. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cat Empire. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2011 (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 Live on Earth (Cat Empire album). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to Explain? (Live at the Sidney Myer Music Bowl)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cat Empire.--Michig (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 01:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Touring Europe and the UK, 2004[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the Ladies[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - EPs are rarely notable, and I see nothing here to point to its notability. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2011 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible Love[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received significant attention on Australian national radio station Triple J and its main track, "Mutha Fukka On A Motorcycle", charted in the Triple J Hottest 100, 2000. Orderinchaos 19:50, 23 July 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Smith (Child Prodigy)[edit]

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

—AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 09:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of a rationale for deletion? I would note, pending such a rationale, that no official information about nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize is released until 50 years after the prize is awarded, and nominations can be made by very many people, including all members of many parliaments and all university professors of particular subjects (see Nobel Peace Prize#Nomination), so any claims of recent nomination should be taken with a very large pinch of salt, and, even if the claim is true, nomination does not confer automatic notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are lots of child prodigies that meet famous people and serve as ambassadors and never wind up famous in the end. And the Nobel Prize nomination claim I find hard to believe. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CBS News article ("Whiz Kid, 13, To Graduate College"), an article on the University of Virginia website, and there are more, for sure. Moscowconnection (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BIO. The Nobel claims should be removed if not better documented. Edison (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete Place key data on the List of child prodigies page. This person does not need his own article. To be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize sounds a big deal, but first of all it's necessary for a claim like that to be backed up with evidence, which is clearly missing here. In the statutes of the Nobel committee, it is forbidden to release details of nominees for fifty years. So you can claim to have been nominated and as long as you decline to say who nominated you, you can't be contradicted - a great way to go from non-notable to notable at a stroke... Incidentally, hundreds are nominated every year, because there's a pretty big range of people who are allowed to nominate - this includes university 'professors' (a loose term in the US) or anyone who sits on any national assembly (in multi-cameral systems there could be a thousand or more in some cases). So I empathise with DONDE's doubts - while happy to be proved wrong. asnac (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1)WP:BLP concerns. 2)Article is mis-named, subject is no longer a 'child' but rather (according to the unverified birthyear) is now 21. 3)Also agree with Asnac & Phil Bridger re:nominations "claims" (see my comments at Talk:Gregory Smith (Child Prodigy)). 4)Sourcing seems quite problematic. Shearonink (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Dubose[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced BLP. Kept at the previous AFD (when the article was substantially longer, and sourced - but not to reliable sources) but difficult to see why. No significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage at independent reliable sources, and nothing to indicate that she meets the notability guidelines PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:33, 19 July 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FFmpeg hosting service[edit]

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

Unsourced article. No evidence of notability given. Mostly original research. Not discussed by reliable secondary sources. Tagged on 2009 and not repaired since then. Marokwitz (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I found at least 2M websites which include this term, which is why I wrote the article. The problem is, most of the top results are advertisements for those services, which I'm loathe to include as references due to WP policy on such links. I've put in a few refs now, but I'm not entirely sure that they're the most comprehensive sources. --Toussaint (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of independent coverage required by WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Video hosting service. FFmpeg hosting service doesn't satisfy GNG for a standalone article at the moment, but it is reliably verifiable as a sub-topic, because it is a service which hosting providers now compete on, for example [33] and plenty of other primary sources. And Video hosting service could use some RS sourcing from some of these sources. --Lexein (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable coverage to justify standalone coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, that many multiple independent WP:PRIMARY sources are reliable, and good enough for a "merge," rather than deletion. Reconsider? --Lexein (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Mimics[edit]

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

Not sure if this is a well-known or notable art form. Google search comes up with a lot of Youtube and other wikis. I found some mentions in German newspapers. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 15:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This feels like planking. It's somewhere between an art form, web content, and an event. One article from The Gap (translated to English, and it's not the clothing store) seems to cover the fad in-depth. It is also described somewhere between a mention and in-depth in this Zeit Article (translated to English) and this Giessener-Zeitung article (translated to English), about how planking is old news and that Urban Mimics is emerging as a new thing. I'm willing to support a keep for this (apparently very German) fad since it seems to fulfill WP:GNG in that it is supported in-depth by multiple, reliable sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:00, 24 July 2011 (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.