Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 30

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FilesAnywhere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Extensive unsourced claims of notability (first, popular), tagged for a long time without resolution of concerns about tone and lack of citations. DMacks (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per this PC Magazine review, this book coverage, this journal coverage, and this book coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 31 December 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) 00:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and close – The nomination doesn't include a valid rationale for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is the solution for this article. Sources are available; I've added those listed by User:SL93 above to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nélida Nassar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I cannot find any significant coverage of this person in secondary sources, as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add one more note -- this article was upheld against speedy deletion as the article concerns a teacher; however, I do not believe the subject of the article meets criteria to fit that category. From the one source provided in the article, it appears the Nassar was a one-time teacher who most likely does not fit any of the 9 criterion under notability policy. At best, Nassar could meet #5, but the source shows only one class, at one year. Just my two cents. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some publications which Nelida forwarded. I'm not sure why such an issue is being created out of this. Nelida is well known in the Boston area and teaches courses at Tufts. She just wants a Wikipedia page as a resource for people who might want to get in touch with her, or want to know more about her works. I read a comment about how this might be "publicity" of her firm; I think that claim is as baseless as it can be. Some of her work is through her design firm, and that is only mentioned in this article for people to know that works from Nassar Designs are also under her portfolio. Usman Masood

Here's why such an issue is being made: this isn't your friend Nelida's Facebook page or Linkedin listing. Since it's apparently penetrated your awareness that there is an apparent problem, have you bothered to look into why that might be? Try WP:AUTO. EEng (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"She just wants a Wikipedia page as a resource for people who might want to get in touch with her" means that the article exists to enable people to contact her: i.e. for promotion of her. That is contrary to Wikipedia's policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Usman Masood (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It always amazes me when people who claim to sell their market sophistication to others blunder onto the scene here without making the slightest attempt to learn the rules and culture, even after being warned they're making a faux pas. Why do people insist on embarrassing themselves like this? EEng (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:COI (most of the edits were made by User:Nelida Nassar) and WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF, WP:GNG, or any other notability standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of above. No establishment of significance in her field. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article is WP:PROMOTION. Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that Wikipedia isn't for countries made up one day.  Sandstein  09:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aryavart Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Completing an incomplete nomination Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unable to find any reliable independent sources for this. No notability established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hoax. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete Its the only Hindutva micronation on the Earth unique in its kind with citizen(registered) citizenship of 600. And see this rule too Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. According to this rule, ignore all rules which prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. It is important micronation as it is good member based which is continuously growing. Press attention would be there sooner or later but ignoring this micronation would be wrong as its far better then few on wikipedia. So please don't delete it!

--Leodescal (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Leodescal, See Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. I am not voting as I had put the AfD tag in the first place. ~ DebashisM^Talk 15:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, IAR doesn't mean it's ok to keep something because someone likes it or feels that publicity from Wikipedia would be convenient. That way really does lie a deluge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although I did decline a speedy tag inserted on inapplicable grounds, I must admit this could be an A7. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of notability, and no reliable sources to be found (at least under that name -- unclear whether it has a Hindi name). -Mairi (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is basically a micronation formed by few students on wikia and the free co[dot]cc website. Now, it appears that they have ventured to Wikipedia for their encyclopedic entry (and probably some publicity). The name chosen by them is an ancient name of India during early mythological times. Plus their Wikia site and the Wikipedia entry have been progressing at the same time and that too without any reference. Thus it can be nothing but a promotional article. DebashisM^Talk 10:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bristol Grammar School. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Bristoliense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced school song article, should be merged into Bristol Grammar School Bob Re-born (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bob Re-born (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into school article No references, no indication of wp:notability, and no visible need / benefit for it to be a separate article. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Obvious merge case. Not notable in itself, but worth adding to Bristol Grammar School page.Tigerboy1966 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 31 December 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  11:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Chaos Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While this comedy duo does exist, I cannot find sufficient rs coverage to confer notability per wp standards. Tagged for notability and lack of refs for nearly 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very little found, this was the most 'significant' and is a minor mention in a (very) local newspaper. --Michig (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Minor mentions, especially in local news, do not show notability. SL93 (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP unless references are added. Pburka (talk) 02:36, 31 December 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. Can be userfied on request.  Sandstein  09:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cinux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no indication of WP:notability. New linux distribution still in early development. No independent sources. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there is no indication of WP:notability and even though Cinux is a new linux distribution still in early development, there is no reason why this article should be deleted. There are several entries around the internet, in different forums from people asking what Cinux is. It would be better if there was an article on Wikipedia than answeres around the internet without any liability. If you think this is a poor article, check out Bodhi's Linux article. This one has more information in it. conmarapgr (conmarapgr) 20:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The substantial coverage I did manage to find were from either their website (cinux.codeplex.com), SourceForge (a download for Cinux), the Cinux Wikia (cinux.wikia.com), their Twitter account (twitter.com/CinuxLinux), Launchpad (launchpad.net/cinux), and osarena.net. None of these appear to have substantial coverage that supports notability per WP:NSOFT (though that's an essay; WP:NWEB can still apply here per footnote #1). No coverage of this "Cinux" in Google News + GNews archives, nor Google Books. HurricaneFan25 — 18:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Re to Conmarapgr: Forums aren't reliable sources; nor are they convincing when taken into note for notability, per WP:SPS. HurricaneFan25 — 18:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I said. Forums are not reliable. That's why I chose Wikipedia to publish an article. The codeplex page you found is not affiliated with the project, the launchpad is and states that clearly. OSArena.net on the other hand has it's own section (OSArena->OSArena Projects->Cinux). There is a list of several articles that state the affiliation of the project. Google News does not contain news about Cinux but, the project was published on a Greek Magazine called Linux Inside and the owner has written an article twice for the magazine, check it out. conmarapgr (conmarapgr) 20:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While your thoughts are appreciated, you appear to misunderstand Wikipedia policy. In particular, the statement that you chose Wikipedia to publish an article because of the unreliability of forums shows this. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. It says, among other things, that "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 22:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notabilty (also by page authors own admission). Nor could I find anything beyond the usual downlaod sites. Wikipedia isn't your free web-space, advertising space, or somewhere to establish the notability of your creation. Pit-yacker (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify: the article is longer then a stub, so it may be saved to the author's user space to be restored via WP:Requested Move if ever becomes notable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sundering of the Elves. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laiquendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not indicate how it meets notability. Only one primary reference is used. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable or significant enough for an entire article to itself. --Bajazeth. And think to rouse us from our dreadful siege / Of the famous Grecian Constantinople 21:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim and merge to Sundering of the Elves. De728631 (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per De728631. Much like we'd merge non-notable characters from a notable fictional work into a list, this particular racial offshoot can be covered in a list article. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge so the article doesnt keep getting recreated. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to Merge References have been added now, but would be better served in Sundering of the Elves GimliDotNet (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge There are three independent sources in the article now. I think it meets all but one of the criteria for general notability—I wouldn't call the coverage significant. The overwhelming majority give the topic just a few sentences, although the entry in Foster (1971) is about 100 words. Based on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) I agree it would do well as part of a list, or as a section in another article. I think Nandor might be a better place for it, but maybe that's a discussion we should continue on Talk:Laiquendi. Regards. Braincricket (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Icaria (genus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Totally unreferenced subject. Written not like an encyclopedia article but like a directory. Stedrick (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is a stub for an article on this taxon of wasps. It is not written as a directory, but is simply a statement of the existence of the genus, which like all genera contains species. The stub has presumably been generated by a bot or in a semi-automated process. We should not be randomly deleting taxonomic stubs; the case for deletion would be that the taxonomic hierarchy described was obsolete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as long as this is a valid taxon, the article is a valid stub. Yes, it needs to be referenced - WP:SOFIXIT. LadyofShalott 18:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - references are needed, but this is a valid genus and should be kept on those grounds (references certainly exist). Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 19:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you apply this rationale to all valid taxa stubs, you'll find yourself swamped. There are millions of species on the planet, all of them are notable as all of them have at least one reliable reference due to the very mechanism of how taxa are named. In the future please check the validity of the taxon first in other sources before AfDing (and better yet - source them yourself). The only reasons a taxonomic article would be deleted is if it was a hoax or if it had been invalidated/synonymized by scientific consensus. Furthermore, please reread WP:NOTDIR and WP:LIST and understand when and where lists are encyclopedic. Just because it's a list doesn't mean its scope is unfeasible, its content is bereft of information, or that it is unencyclopedic. Do not nominate something for deletion based solely on it being a list.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's a verified genus. SL93 (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I created this article, it's just a stub for now but this is how Wikipedia articles start. Like above, the only reason to delete a taxonomic page would be if it is no longer valid. Mattximus (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep – The article now has a reference. A list of species in a genus article doesn't read like a directory, in my opinion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:44, 31 December 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  08:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goretorture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Band put out one album, on a label which appears to have put out just three albums before disappearing. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources; does not establish significance; only one record label album. No one has signed on to band's MySpace profile for over a year, which could indicate that the ensemble has dispersed. --hydrox (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable label. No claim to notability. SL93 (talk) 02:37, 31 December 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 per WP:G3. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FDale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Biography of a minor, originally created by a WP:SPA. Only claim to notability is "is known for the youngest journalist working in ABS-CBN" which is insufficient. Prod removed by a similarly-named new account, so bringing to AfD. Various "references" are basically to versions of the same "interview" published on non-reliable sites. Falls far short of meeting WP:CREATIVE; at best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article has resources to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sojdfsdf (talk • contribs) 06:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly speedily, as lacking in notability; all sources are apparently self-published, and they all seem to be copies of the same text. Isn't this the same subject as the repeatedly deleted Flint Diao/Flintzel Diao? (see http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/facts_about__flint_diao ) --bonadea contributions talk 16:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 00:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kelly (Scottish footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Although he plays for fully pro club his only appearance for the club was last season when they were in the Scottish Second Division & therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete - per nom. In the absence of significant coverage, and since Mr. Kelly has not appeared in a fully pro league, this article clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. No prejudice to recreation if and when he makes his First Division debut. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yet to make fully pro appearance and does not meet GNG.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Saturday (wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Topic fails to meet WP:GNG and is filled with WP:OR. Article is almost entirely unreferenced, the only footnote pointing to an anecdote about a television scheduling change not related to either two main topics of the article (WWF/GCW). Google search of "black saturday wrestling" and "black saturday wwf" provides no related coverage of the article subject. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Four book references were easy to find and add. More referencing is needed, but the current references establish sufficient notability to keep the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it has several book sources as, ie, "Ringside: a history of professional wrestling in America" by Scott Beekman, Tributes by Dave Meltzer and The Death of WCW by R. D. Reynolds and Bryan Alvarez. --Cavarrone (talk) 13:51, 31 December 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. LFaraone 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 AEGON GB Pro-Series Foxhills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a small $25000 ITF tournament, so doesn't meet the tournament notability guidelines used by Wikiproject tennis, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines
MakeSense64 (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [content forks of the main article]:

2011 AEGON GB Pro-Series Foxhills – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2011 AEGON GB Pro-Series Foxhills – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MakeSense64 (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing this AfD to see how it goes. There are over 400 similar articles for small ITF tournaments, which can be found on this category page: 2011 ITF Women's Circuit. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This point should be listed on the tennis project talk page. Those 2008-2011 $25,000 tournies are not notable but to list them all as afd or speedy delete should be mentioned to make sure no one complains later. Remember that $25,000 tournies before 2008 are notable so there could be some overlap. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once we have clarity what to do with this kind of articles I will ask the help of the tennis project to clean up these articles. I think the best will be to use WP:PROD, which gives creators/editors time to complain. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - agreed, it does not meet the notability threshold of $35,000. Neither does the 2010 event for that matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - These 25K ITF tournaments are important in matter of point distribution! (Gabinho^>:) 08:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The 10K ITF tournaments also offer ranking points. So, that's not a criterion for notability.

The current concensus on the wikiproject tennis is that ITF tourneys under 35K are not notable. You can propose to change that at the wp tennis, but until there is a change we should just go by current guidelines. This one is well under 35K and also fails GNG. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no women's tournament that is worth that. It goes, 10, 25, 50, 75, 100. Sounds like some people are gaming a bit instead of looking at the big picture. For example men's challengers go to 35k apparently, not that I look it's a challenger, the problem is you can't use a system designed for one tour and try and impliment it on a completly different thing! If you limited it to no yearly article's on any tournament under 50k then it would work. But 35k limit for a woman's tournament is totally unplausable as per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.23.177 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not gaming and after discussion we did look at the big picture. And yes you can try and implement one tour over the other because that's exactly what we attempted to do. Is it perfect, no it's not...but it is fair. Who knows what dollar amount the womens tour may come up with next year or the year after. Right now the men's bottom of notability is the challenger and the lowest challenger is $35000. No mens ITF is notable at all. The ladies have no challenger tour so we made the cutoff of theirs at $35000 also; knowing they have no $35000 tournies at this moment. The men give more points to their 35000 challengers than the ladies do for their $25000 events (maybe the $50000 too?). This was all discussed and was the fairest balance so editors would know what to add and what not to add. There are a heck of a lot more of these tiny $25000 ladies events then there are $35000 mens challenger events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Tournament is below the limit of $35,000 limit of notability, and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, thus non-notable. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 12:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Can this AfD be closed by an admin? This discussion is now 3 weeks old and has been neither relisted nor closed. A more recent AfD involving under $35k ITF tournaments was already closed as delete this week. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 ITF Djibouti Open (1). MakeSense64 (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment' This AfD was incomplete, as it wasn't added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 7, now listed under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 30. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 14:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually did add it to the Dec7 log Diff, but some editor (now banned) had removed it. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Now I see what actually happened, TigerShark screwed up by the relisting of one item, and made many deletion discussions hidden. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  OK then. I guess it will get through the wringer eventually. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete And delete the others where the situation is the same. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 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) 01:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Entertainment Pvt Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Possible hoax. All sources limited to Facebook and talent recruiting sites. Company website is nonexistent. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 14:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zero references aside from facebook pages. North8000 (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as business spam. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and SALT. This is unambiguous advertising, especially since there's absolutely no reliable sources out there. Everything that comes up is either from the company or advertisements saying that the company wants to hire people. The editor that added everything gives himself away at Wasim Akram (Producer) when he listed the facebook account as "My facebook profile". A quick look at his edits shows that all he's done is add edits relating to the company, so this is pretty obvious advertising, regardless of whether he was aware of WP:ADVERT or not.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete. This article provides no links for reference except Facebook and I don't find any relevant results at Google. Other articles like Gayathri 2013, Sameena Kausar and Sridhar Teegala are also created by Wasirg (original author of this article) which are either unsourced BLP, linked only to Facebook or don't have any references at all. At the present state this article appears as hoax or advert. trunks_ishida (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Top-notch", "bounced back", "Ambitious venture" etc. Promotional article. Let's get this one out of the way and move on. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – After several searches, just not finding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with enthusiasm. Unverifiability hints strongly of WP:HOAX and along with similar film article Dead Morning, as well as the director article Sridhar Teegala, and the ones for Gayathri (2013 film) and Wasim Akram (Producer) all created by single purpose User:Wasirg all seem to be set to promote the non-notable producer, his film company, and his films. None have verifiability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional spam--Sodabottle (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Like this deletion discussion here, I think that this could probably be a snow close at this point in time, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep Nomination withdrawn based on improvement, no outstanding delete !votes. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aqib Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A relatively unnoteable actor with no references to pages other than IMDB, an offical website and a Twitter feed. Also there appears to be edit warring, persistent vandalism, page ownership, and a conflict of interest (see edit summary [1]). Cocoaguy ここがいい 05:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 30. Snotbot  t • c »  14:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Zero sources, no indication of wp:notability. Most variants of the article have looked like self-blogging. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the now expanded and sourced article. I share the nominator's concerns about IPs and SPAs mis-handling the article, but such is best handled with semi-protection and a careful watch over future edits. We have a very new actor whose two significant roles in notable productions just tick at WP:ENT, and whose coverage surpasses requirements of WP:GNG. What the nominator understandably first nominated was in pretty poor shape,[2] but just a few hours of work we have something that now properly serves the project and which no longer contains inappropriate sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to Keep per Schmidt-- Cocoaguy ここがいい 05:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (changed from delete) Much improved, including sources establishing wp:notability. To those who did it: nice work! North8000 (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Nan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no notability, created himself with sockpuppets Gracioso (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't carry any brief for people who use sockpuppets, facebook, twitter etc to publicise themselves. However, Nan's list of interviews in magazines seems to be genuine, I checked several of them and all were short magazine articles about him, supporting the claim that he is a notable pop artist in the Spanish-speaking world. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep It's hard to tell but ability to meet wp:notability looks likely. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree that the current references suggest enough notability, although I would like to see at least one note from a major outlet. I think the dead link for El Nuevo Herald is this article, but it's behind a paywall. I'm leaning for keep so far, but I cannot access many sites right now so I'll check back tonight. As for the content, it is a direct translation from the subject's website [3] — Frankie (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ariel Nan (nicknamed 'El Brad Pitt Latino':)) is in my opinion a notable celebrity in Argentina/Latino world. His activities are noted by important media, see an interview at the website of Univision Radio, [4] El Diario Argentino, Fama or some of the sources linked in our article. It is in my opinion enough to compile a decent article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I wasn't able to find anything else that was usable, only this blog post. Still, the current sources do constitute significant coverage, Semanario Argentino is certainly reliable and independent for our purposes, and it appears to be the same for Recorriendo America News, Latino Espectacular, and HIT Magazine — Frankie (talk) 01:15, 31 December 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 Userfied to author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shaniqua (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:BALL, also the official website, IMDb and blog entries are not WP:RS. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I have added further references in the hope that this is not removed. The film is currently being filmed and is registered with the british film council (http://film.britishcouncil.org/shaniqua) and the Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2112262/). If I can add anything else to help the article please let me know. I've also added a link (this is available on various sites) which shows the distribution agreement which was announced in september 2011, (http://www.metalonrock.tv/frozenecho/pressrelease-25sep2011.pdf). Kind regards Danielle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielle Kidman (talk • contribs) 13:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suprised that IMDB isn't recognised as a reputable source when it comes to films? I've also attached various interviews and news reports with cast and crew if that assists in keeping the page?

http://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/st_albans_actress_in_starring_film_role_1_1160673 http://fameonline.co.uk/2011/12/local-girl-emma-louise-cargill-makes-it-to-the-big-screen/ http://www.movievine.com/interviews/interview-with-mark-noyce/ http://mattjhorn.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/mark-noyce-on-the-ropes-2011/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielle Kidman (talk • contribs) 14:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The relevant guidelines are at WP:NFF. If filming has really begun, then the question is whether it has gained enough attention to pass the notability test, as evidenced by the interest others are taking in it, rather than the efforts of those responsible for promoting it. After all, a lot of films have been made or proposed over the years, and only some ever got a general commercial release. Wikipedia is not a directory of every film project, and that would be a quite different undertaking, interesting as it might be. --AJHingston (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that many films 'say' they are being made and never see the light of day so understand your concerns, but this is being talked about in various interviews, news pages and I've also linked to the official press release from cornerstone media international who are the distributors. None of these are the efforts of people 'responsible' for promotion but I understand if you don't feel this enough to qualify for a Wikipedia entry at this time. If this is the case I appreciate your time in looking at this and I will submit it again when the film is released. Thank you. Danielle Kidman (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielle Kidman (talk • contribs) 16:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I looked at the links on the entry and only three of the links can really be used as sources and they might be considered trivial at best since the film isn't the sole focus of the article. It's discussed, but sort of briefly and the update from Movie Vine is so brief that it can't be anything other than trivial. An article has to be in-depth to really count as a reliable source per WP:RS. The others appear to be press releases, links to the IMDB page, and links to a blog that isn't considered to be notable enough to count as a reliable source. The general rule of thumb is that IMDb is never used as a reliable source, press releases aren't usable because anything released by the people making the film is considered to be a primary source and not reliable, and blogs can only be listed unless they're by people who are considered to be such a notable authority on things that well, they'd have a page on Wikipedia themselves. Roger Ebert would be someone whose blog would be usable, but the blog of someone who just recently started blogging this year really wouldn't be. Even if they're not involved with production, we can't take sources from just anywhere. They have to be from sources that are considered reliable and somewhat notable. I did a search and I'm not pulling anything up that would be considered a reliable source per WP:RS. I don't mean to sound negative, but there's just not enough sources to really show that this film meets the strict and I mean STRICT guidelines for WP:FFILM. Don't get too discouraged by this since most non-mainstream films don't meet these guidelines. To really qualify for this you generally have to be a big blockbuster or a Juno-esque indie flick. You can userfy the article and keep the progress that you've done so far (WP:USERFY), so you can keep editing it on your user page and add reliable sources to it as they become available.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Additional: Just to let you know why IMDb isn't considered reliable, it's because anyone can edit IMDb. Just as teachers don't allow Wikipedia to be used as a source because too many fingers have their fingers in the wiki pie, the same thing applies to IMDb. (See WP:IMDB)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

OK, many thanks and I truly appreciate your comments. I will attempt to submit this again when more articles and interviews have been done solely on this film. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielle Kidman (talk • contribs) 19:15, 30 December 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:SNOW œ^™ 22:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasim Akram (Producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Procedural. Disputed prod by original author (and subject of article). Fails to meet adequate notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article provides no links for reference except Facebook and self created pages (by this author). All his works are either not released or in pre-production phase. I don't find any relevant results at Google for any of his works. Other articles like Gayathri 2013, Sameena Kausar, Sara Entertainment Pvt Ltd and Sridhar Teegala are also created by Wasirg (original author) which are either unsourced BLP, link to Facebook or don't have any references at all. He (subject of article) may be considered notable in future, but not now. trunks_ishida (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if not speedy delete. This person has no notability and I'm almost 100% positive that the editor who added the pages is Akram himself since he listed the profile as "my facebook profile". This is pretty much just advertisement for his company and projects. There's no reliable sources out there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Speedy delete per A7. Obviously self-promotional. Also, some one should warn (if not block) User talk:Wasirg for creating self promotional articles. Cocoaguy ここがいい 00:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete purely self-promotional. — Abhishek  ^Talk 04:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – After some searching, I have found zero coverage for this individual in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this person in independent reliable sources.  Gongshow ^Talk 19:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with enthusiasm. Unverifiability hints strongly of WP:HOAX and along with similar film article Dead Morning, as well as the director article Sridhar Teegala, and the ones for Gayathri (2013 film) and all created by single purpose User:Wasirg all seem to be set to promote the non-notable producer, his film company, and his films. None have verifiability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional spam--Sodabottle (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think that this could probably be a snow close at this point in time, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this does not meet the requirements for a standalone article. I imagine that a redirect to People's Republic of China–South Africa relations would be useful, but that's an editorial decision. The deleted content (which is about two instances in which the Dalai Lama did not get a visa for South Africa) can be restored if somebody really thinks it's important enough to incorporate it into other articles.  Sandstein  09:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet – South Africa relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article describes a non-occurent relationship. Relations between the dalai lama (a private individual) and South Africa do not equate to relations between Tibet and South Africa. And as the article makes clear, South Africa hasn't even had relations with the dalai lama. ClaretAsh 12:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tibet is not an independent nation and the "relations" covered in the article focuses on whether H.H. The Dalai Lama was able to get a visa to enter South Africa. Perhaps that information can be imported to the existing article on diplomatic relations between the Beijing and Pretoria governments? And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Disagree with "Tibet is not an independent nation" being a reason, but there really isn't content here. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable; for example, see Engaged Buddhism in the West. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

resolution by editing policy is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Our editing policy says to "Preserve appropriate content. and this is definitely a reason for keeping. Warden (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

articles are kept if there is consensus notability is met, I don't see any consensus for keep here, plus Warden I've seen you recycle editing policy argument numerous times and it hardly relates here as the main argument against keeping is that the article name is not representative as a notable topic. Editing policy does not address this issue. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The South African government's attitude towards the Dali Lama is controversial and might well warrant an article. However, presenting the material as 'Tibet - South Africa' relations isn't going to help readers (who'd never look for it under such a name) and confuses the issue. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete relations with Dalai Lama does not equate to bilateral relations. This is WP:SYNTH. Tibet has no passport or national parliament unlike say Taiwan. LibStar (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Why should the Dalai Lama not be a representative of Tibet and thus constitute Tibet-South Africa relations even under such a recondite title? And also, one cannot dispute that Tibet is not a political entity of itself and can therefore form part of a political relation. Just because it is not a nation state or independent political unit by classification does not diminish its political influence. I think the nominator has given a poor reason for deleting this article: there is definitely an "occurring relationship" but not by his/her pedantic definition. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's no skin off my teeth whether the dalai lama should or shouldn't be a represntative of Tibet. The fact of the matter, though, is that he isn't. To the best of my knowledge, Tibet does not possess the right to engage in independent international relations, and even if Beijing has granted the region that power, the Dalai Lama has not been empowered to exercise those rights. The Dalai Lama can claim to represent the Tibetan government in exile but he has no official authority in or over Tibet. As it is, this article doesn't even discuss relations with the Tibetan govt-in-exile, merely with a private individual. ClaretAsh 03:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nick-D and nom. GotR ^Talk 04:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In light of others' comments above, I'm modifying my view somewhat. I suggest the article content be merged into a more appropriate article (both People's Republic of China–South Africa relations and 14th Dalai Lama would be good) prior to being deleted. ClaretAsh 01:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exivious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm listing this here on behalf of A Sniper who PRODed the article, unaware that an AFD had been started (but incorrectly formed) before. Their concern about the article is that "self-released demo band, non-important, no notoriety (other than two members were hired as musicians for Cynic (band) until one year ago)". SmartSE (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although this is an interesting band, I feel they fail on every level. A limited edition, self-released CD does not make them notable or important. They are virtually unknown. Yes, two members were hired to record & tour with Cynic, but that is not enough to warrant the article. Perhaps if Exivious release a full-length disc on a bona fide label then the article can be reinstated. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Not a notable band, lacks coverage in WP:reliable sources so fails WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpanagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable enough. » nafSadh did say 09:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Places are generally notable. WP:NPLACE states that "Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is not a policy or guidelne itself, but does provide a useful summary of how AfDs have been decided over the years. Emeraude (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pushpanagar village certainly exists. It's in the Kolhapur district of Maharashtra state, with a correct citation to onefivenine.com mapping website. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's a verified village. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 31 December 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  11:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leeton Market Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Minor shopping centre; no assertion of significance; lack of reliable sources available. [5] Till I Go Home (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NPLACE states that "Larger malls are generally considered notable. Very small malls, strip malls and individual shops are generally deleted." This is undoubtedly one of the latter type. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is not a policy or guidelne itself, but does provide a useful summary of how AfDs have been decided over the years. Emeraude (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:ORG. A mere 21 shops, no way this is notable on a state or national level. LibStar (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, Leeton is not a large town, and a "mere" 21 shops is probably quite notable locally and not considered 'minor'. However, the only article I could find which discussed the centre in detail and wasn't a specialty or niche publication was this, and I'm not sure there's enough to build an article out of that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 00:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Zubr Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested ProD. A non notable $25k ITF tournament, below the $35k required by WP:NTENNIS. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tournament is below the limit of $35,000 limit of notability, and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, thus non-notable. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 08:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - one of hundreds of tiny ITF non-notable tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Trofeul Popeci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested ProD. A non notable $25k ITF tournament, below the $35k required by WP:NTENNIS. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Notablility. Bgwhite (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Tournament is below the limit of $35,000 limit of notability, and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, thus non-notable. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 08:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - one of hundreds of tiny ITF non-notable tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no international notability. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No one, except the nominator, advocates deletion of the article. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to be notable; does not appear to feature on any major charts or the subject of articles from major websites. LF (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, this article notes that the album "was released with little fanfare in 2003". Bob Evans (aka Kevin from Jebediah) is definitely notable, and there is oodles of coverage for his second album, but I don't know if there is really enough for this one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep the album has sufficient third party coverage for it to be retained in its own right. In response to Lankiveil's comments there are also numerous articles which indicate that its release recieved favourable response from music critics.Dan arndt (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's no doubt that Bob Evans is notable, but it seems this album got little attention. There are quite a few hits on the Australian music sites, but most are limited to a mention in a review of the next album, Suburban Songbook. Plus, I think the Bob Evans page covers the subject pretty well.Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources has now been provided by Dan arndt. The article should be kept per WP:GNG.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Braithwaite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As tragic as all of this is, this is just routine coverage of a crime and does not meet the relevant inclusion guidelines Mtking ^(edits) 05:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:VICTIM. This is a sad story, but routine coverage of just another pathetic murder is not enough to make the crime victim notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nom & Cullen. I remember the news coverage of this. Very sad, but fails WP:VICTIM. Cocoaguy ここがいい 06:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 December 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 per WP:G3. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis hibler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No references , External Links is provided  Buddha Putra - Rahul (Talk) 05:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have tagged the article for Speedy Delete under G3 as a blatant hoax. However, there was really no need to have taken this to AfD. The article was tagged with a BLP PROD, which was sufficient. Safiel (talk) 06:01, 30 December 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.

When considering to close this discussion, it was important to determine the arguments that were completely unsupported by policy, arguments along the lines of I like it and other stuff exists. Petitions and mass keep voting are similarly ineffective, as Wikipedia is not a democracy.

The person's death and the circumstances surrounding that have garned widespread news coverage, and the individual has reached a degree of notoriety for his story. Granted, arguments that his notability is due to one event do gel, and while notability is not temporary it may be worth reevaluating this in the future. However, presently there does not appear to be consensus here to delete the article.

This discussion has been closed as no consensus. LFaraone 08:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Ben Breedlove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article fails to show notability, mostly focuses on his final pair of videos and his death, and should be deleted per WP:NTEMP ("[I]f reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.") also see WP:MEMORIAL -TinGrin 04:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Important Comment -The number of views to Ben Breedlove's Wikipedia article in the last day-Appx. 30,000. This is high volume traffic to an article. WHY is this article even being discussed for deletion?! Petersontinam (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Addition to Comment -On January 4, Ben Breedlove Article on Wikipedia had 27,700 views. On January 5, 26,400 views according to the January 2012 graph. The total was 399,639 without Today, January 6 being added in. Barrak Obama had 91 views in January 2012, and I know that is not relevant to this discussion but I thought it was interesting.Petersontinam (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -This should be an addition to his article...The HCMA(Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Association) is creating a special bracelet for Ben Breedlove. They will say, "RIP Big Hearted Ben Breedlove." This bracelet will help raise awareness for the heart condition. ^[1] Petersontinam (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Quote: "Notabilty is not Temporary." Once a topic has been the subject of "significan coverage", it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Therefore, as long as Ben breedlove is determined to have significant coverage, this page does not need endless proof that it is significant.

Also, Repeatedly through the Policies and guidelines, are sentences about using "common sense" by Editors, that no guideline is written in stone, etc. If a subject is deceased and in reality has no chance to put forth further events to "solidify" their page at wikipedia, this should not count against them. In reference to a personality such as Snookie or a Kardashian...because they are not deceased and have the ability to add to their notariety (Even if bad press), does not give them an advantage at securing a page at wikipedia. Common Sense. Think.

Also, If Ben were thought of under Creative Professionals, yes he does fit there, The guidelines of being "widely cited by peers" and "originating a significant concept" adhere. The concept and discussion of life after death is not original, yes, but it is surely original for 10's of thousands of people to believe in it after getting to know Ben's life and videos.

Also, when people who wish to delete are citing that it is one event, or based on one event (his death), there are policies which speak of writing separate or additonal articles...it does not say that one event is not worthy of a page. Please consider this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.235.150 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.235.235.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment Please refer to the XfD page: Ben Breedlove has many, many comments (though not all that have been posted are there) and discussion. ALL other topics and subjects that are nominated to be deleted have a minimum of 1 comment, maximum of about 3. If there is this much interest within the walls of wikipedia itself and its community, it is Noteworthy enough to have a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersontinam (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the definition of "Noteable". I read it carefully. Ben Breedlove fits the criteria...over and over and not just barely. I urge others to go to this page. If deletion is truly about whether he fits within the guidelines, your answer is on that page. Also, there is very important information and guidelines about RESPECT in debates, and I believe "meatpuppet shrieking" does NOT fit within those guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.235.150 (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.235.235.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How in the world can YOU determine if he will "remain a low-profile individual"? You are not doing your research apparently. Go to Legacy.com, BREEDLOVE TV, etc. There are hundreds of messages going in daily, still, about how Ben affected their lives. So, you can predict that in the future, people will not seek out Ben Breedlove on Wikipedia? Do you have a way to measure all the pages on Wikipedia every day and determine if they are receiving enough attention to warrant a page? Will you headhunt everything on Wikipedia that is good, gives hope, and touches hearts and then make sure you put up deletion warnings? Leaving pages about despair, crime, sleaze, and celebrities famous for only sex tapes to have a permanent place here? A little screwed up and a LOT censored...Take another look at the guidelines and tell me with a straight face and honestly that Ben does not fit within these. It is NOT a songle even, but an ongoing outpouring. Every day, people are still seeking his name...guess they may not find him on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.235.150 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.235.235.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete - Based on Wikipedia standards, article should be deleted. As mentioned by others, Ben Breedlove did inspire others and contributed good in that way, but almost all coverage seems to focus on a single event (his death) and likelyhood of his becoming more notable beyond that is unlikely. While Snooki and the Kardashians may have contributed far less good to society, as others mentioned, they unfortunately have many more events of note, and thus meet the Wikipedia guidelines. Please respect Wikipedia's mission and editorial objective and honor Ben Breedlove in other ways. Tmaroney (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tmaroney — Tmaroney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - Article in its so far one day existence, has already 90,000 views; (Edit: 130,000 views the next day; 220,000 in two days) has coverage from all around the word (Ninemsn; Los Angeles Times; American Broadcasting Company; CBS News; MSNBC; Fox News; MTV; Daily Mail; Independent; Herald Sun; Washington Post; People Magazine) - article itself is even mentioned on the KXAN news broadcast here (skip to 2:00). Also, his funeral was broadcasted on TV Internet! 11,000 viewers online; 1,400 attending. I see notability in bright colours. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 04:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you can't use the recursive logic that he should have a wikipedia page, just because a local news report mentioned that he has a wikipedia page. -TinGrin 07:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - No, just provided information, that corroborates notability. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 07:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: His funeral was not "broadcasted [sic] on TV." It was live streamed on the internet. Television and the internet are two different things. --Crunch (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: 11,000 people. Either way, internet or not internet, they still "broadcasted" it - and more than ten-thousand people watched it. That's still a pretty big number - for a "non"-notable person. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 13:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sorry nothing was "broadcasted." Broadcast, perhaps, but not "broadcasted." --13:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Crunch, you do realize that he has done more to better our society than most, [redacted] This page does not take up valuable space [redacted]. You must have searched his name to find the page in the first place, so don't you think other people will search for his page as well? Mcooper92 (talk)MC — Mcooper92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Reply. Wikipedia has guidelines for measuring notability of a person. Doing good for society is not one of these measures, nor is being the object of curiosity resulting in high traffic to an article on Wikipedia about the person. And finally, articles are not proposed for deletion, or deleted, because they "take up valuable space." They are deleted because they fail to meet Wikipedia guidelines.--Crunch (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Worthy people die every day, but an encyclopedia is not the place to remember them. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You act as if the page is taking up valuable space. Only people searching for the page will find it, so I don't see why the deletion of the page is relevant to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcooper92 (talk • contribs) contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Individual is an Internet personaility ~ I can name you many articles that document them. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 05:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His notability as an internet personality before his death was perhaps marginal, but when it is combined with the voluminous coverage in first-class sources since he died, notability is clear. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - being inspirational, or having a viral video, is not the same as being notable. NBC Nightly News has inspirational pieces every night, the majority of which do not meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability -TinGrin 07:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repy - how many internet personalities do you know that have had world coverage, with news-articles on them, from all different countries; had multiple broadcasts on them; had their own funeral broadcasted live on TV, start to finish; multiple viral videos - yet no notability? Apologies, but I'm just finding this a little hard to imagine. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 07:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. Again, his funeral was neither broadcast nor "broadcasted" [sic] on TV. It was live streamed on the internet. Second, there have been plenty of subjects of viral videos who have gotten wide-spread media coverage. Who does not remember the video of the little boy riding home from the dentist, or any number of sneezing or talking babies, puppies and kittens? The fact that the media latches on to these short-lived feel good stories, DOES NOT mean that the subject is notable. Most of them have not died yet, so the opportunity for a live-streamed funeral is a moot point. --Crunch (talk)

• Crunch, if you would actually please read the article, you would know what you are shouting out is disproportionately out of line. Nowhere in the article did it say his memorial service was "live streamed" on the Internet. It was broadcast on KXAN-TV. And this story is a "short-lived feel good" one? You're attacking the subject of this very article as much as you are attacking the other editors. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Obviously, I read the article. It states, "The memorial service was broadcast live on KXAN." This is a statement that editor MelbourneStar also made, though since corrected, in this discussion. The accompanying references do not support the live television broadcast claim. The references state that the funeral was streamed live on the KXAN website. If you do a Google search for "breedlove funeral on television" you will see that the television claim is false. Again, there is a difference between a live television broadcast and a live-streamed internet video on a television station's website. --Crunch (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Voting isn't going to get this thing anywhere because it is definitely going to be a keep if we are counting the votes. A majority of these voters seems to be random people that pop onto wikipedia to get this article not deleted. People die everyday. I am of the opinion that this guy would be of no importance in the next few years or months, but I'll stay neutral.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Case of WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia not being a memorial. Bgwhite (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is an inspiration to all of us and his actions are somewhat notable. No harm keeping the page. Orangewarning (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No harm in keeping the page" is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The supposed reason for notability of this person are his vlogs. I don't think his vlogs were that popular as portrayed by the article. Wikipedia is not a memorial site as many others before me have said. Being an inspiration to others does not warrant an article in this case. May I suggest a brief write-up on the YouTube celebrities page if he happens to hit notability requirements for such. Paul 1953 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep – per MelbourneStar. Completely passes WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:N in their entirety. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Liberal touting of WP policy - don't you think? The whole Wikipedia policy of WP:N is to be reflected and this fails WP:NTEMP "completely". Fails part of WP:BIO per WP:ONEEVENT. - JoshuaWalker | Talk to Me 14:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Wanted to address this- WP:NTEMP "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Part of the Policy is to say that it does not need ongoing coverage...Though Ben Breedlove does have that. The other part of the Policy is about if they are likely to remain a low profile individual, which so far Ben has not been low profile. Proof of level of profile: On YouTube alone, Ben Breedlove's 3 Channels have these numbers- 10,512,000+ Uploaded Views, 111,533+ Subscibers, 12,826+ Comments (mostly messages of inspiration), and hundreds and hundreds of videos inspired by him where people are telling "their story"...which continue to come in daily. This is just one place. Which also addresses the inclusion criteria for Notability- Events. "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards." It is not true to say that this article fails. Petersontinam (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Comment Below - Stating that this person will "soon be forgotten" is not an acceptable reason for a delete according to WP:CRYSTAL. Also, While an AfD is "not conducted by amassing votes", it also should take into consideration the reasons that are stated while quoting a policy, the actual words of the Policies (and not just the titles) and if they truly apply to the situation.Petersontinam (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - despite the temporary media storm and the many sudden visitors here at AfD, this was a piece of media hype about a non-notable individual who will soon be forgotten. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and AfD is not conducted by amassing votes, canvassed or not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soon be forgotten"? Prove it. Also, this article is not memorial in any way. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - unsure of notability at the moment, but could somebody protect this page as there seems to a pile-on of meatpuppets shouting "keep keep keep keep" at ear piercing volume. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- As mentioned by the nominator, Wikipedia is not a Memorial. Being the subject or creator a temporarily popular viral video does not make one notable nor does this meet the requirements for WP:BIO. Should we create biography articles for every cute baby playing with a puppy who shows up in a viral video that the media latches on to? Of course not. This isn't any difference. --Crunch (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "Should we create biography articles for every CUTE BABY (my emphasis) playing with a puppy who shows up in a viral video that the media latches on to?" One of the most [redacted] I've ever read on any AfD debate. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - The plethora of sources show that this topic clearly passes WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I'm finding it difficult on this one. Internet personalities are transient at best, it's difficult for us to prove notability on one, especially one who is not going to be producing anything new. This viral video is less than a week old, but it has clearly had more than a little effect, given the fact that so many news outlets are covering it. This isn't a WP:MEMORIAL situation, as it's not written as a memorial and not by anyone who knows him. If you look prior to Christmas day there are no gnews hits, so it does make me think "one event". However, I think I've fallen on the side of Keep. He meets the GNG, he's an internet personality, he's made a viral video which many many news outlets are covering, celebrities have been commenting on him. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets GNG as the object of multiple, substantial, published independent stories. It's a pretty well done piece on top of that, and that should absolutely be taken into consideration on "close calls." The encyclopedia is clearly better with than without the piece. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - At least wait a while to see if notability develops further. Time may be the most significant factor here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.46.35 (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — 101.170.46.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment As a member of WikiProject Death I've gone through several articles about young people who became "notable" for dying for one reason or another -- usually murder or "bullycide". Several of them had been nominated for deletion. The ones that are kept have proved some degree of "historical" relevance -- meaning their death has on some scale shifted public perception about the issue relevant to their death. Establishing historical relevance takes time and this article was created too soon. As someone said above, currently we have a case of WP:BLP1E, though I must admit the coverage is impressive. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' I don't have a chance to express my opinion with a "Keep" or "Delete" commentary, that's because I'm from spanish Wikipedia, my natal wiki where I contribute entirely. I think this could really help to know how much attention the media has brought in the last days about this boy. I consider we as a whole project could mantain this short entry for a while at least while we know if it's relevant because the same attention or influences in other people of foundations. Even we could find now sites like this around the web. --Phoenix58 (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment'I'll restrict my viewpoint to a comment at the moment since I'm a brand new community member and do not well understand all of the rights and responsibilities of authentic Wikipedia users yet. I'd like to edit the article as it appears currently and will endeavor to do so. I agree just about verbatim with user Jeraphine Gryphon above and will add that I see potential impact in the areas of social media use by budding high school-aged internet entrepreneurs, viral spread of news on the internet, and raised awareness for Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, among other things. I do think "this article was created too soon" and is attracting a lot of SPA-type fervor which is distracting from the potential value of Ben's story. There are also important and relevant facts on the above areas of potential influence that I'd like to add. I'm a former journalist and parent at Ben's high school and will try earnestly to "rescue" this article as I'm able to learn more about Wikipedia procedures. I welcome emails from community members that can help guide me on my first edit. Since I still have a lot to learn about "talk" and discussion pages I prefer email contact. AllisonPeacock (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — AllisonPeacock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Ben's video from shortly before his death has has quite an impact on views about dying, life after death, and how to cope with those, that people looking for information on him should be able to find it on Wikipedia. In fact I'm really surprised at this discussion, for there are many people with an article on Wikipedia that deserve this attention far less. It is not because he was just another teenager with a blog that he should be covered on Wikipedia, but because of the social and worldwide impact of his last video. Anyone searching for background should be able to find that on Wikipedia. There certainly are many more examples on Wikipedia of events and people that get enormous attention during a short period of time, and get coverd with an article. Need I go on? It's obvious, even if you don't like the subject of his experiences.--Satrughna (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep For now. The national media coverage has been enormous--couldn't watch morning or evening news this week without seeing this. I recognize that short-term or single-event notability doth not an article make, nor do we do memorials, but I'd suggest giving this a few weeks' shelf life before a determination is made. Can always be revisited and renominated if appropriate. For the moment it's a high-profile story. Incidentally, I've no connection to the above IPs, and wonder if some of the 'keeps' constitute multiple submissions by a single account. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This has received a lot of media attention just like Ted Williams did. If this is removed, then the article for Mr. Williams should be also along with any other person that gained popularity from being an Internet Meme. Mr Xaero (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Internet celebrity BigDwiki (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, and re-evaluate once the hype and the sensationalist media coverage has died down, and we can assess the notability from a better perspective. Swarm ^X 02:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NTEMP. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 03:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary is not a valid deletion reason. He has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources. WP:BLP1E may come into play if news coverage is not persistent. However, the event was extremely recent, so this is currently impossible to evaluate whether or not there is persistent coverage. I believe the article should be kept for now. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - huge amount of independent coverage, that's all there is to it. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject is the focus of multiple reliable third-party sources and crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Personally, I think Wikipedia does itself a disservice in devoting time and energy to trying to delete articles like this one in the full glare and heat of the media spotlight. Re-visit in six months when a dispassionate discussion can be held rather than stirring up the raw emotions that now surround the subject. - Dravecky (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article does not satisfy WP:BIO. This is clearly a memorial article, which is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, and the references are just a mass of sad eulogies following his untimely death.Revisit in 6 months, 1 year, 5 years if sentiment prevents deletion at this time. Edison (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Edison- William 00:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*"Keep" - why wouldn't this page be kept? There's a wikipage about Bubbles the chimpanzee, but people have an issue with Ben's page. Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foghrnleghrn (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Foghrnleghrn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment "Other inappropriate articles exist" is a poor argument for retaining this one. Edison (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I was intending to go neutral on this, but now I am inclined to keep, mainly due to the overwhelming coverage of the subject. Ben Breedlove has been identified as an internet celebrity and has applicable citations supporting it. I'm satisfied Superlayna (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: First of all I have to say I am quite surprised and quite disappointed about this whole 'situation' here on Wikipedia. Until today I always thought that Wikipedia was a reliable 'objective' resource when one wanted to find out more about a topic or person. However today I am learning that there are people who like censorship and it saddens me even more to see that this is done on the back of such a delicate topic! Before I get to the 'Wikipedia guideline facts' I would like to share a couple of personal thoughts nevertheless:

It was my Mum, who lives in Germany (she doesn't speak much English, doesn't know how to use any of Facebook, Twitter, or other internet things than doing some research and emailing) who told me about an article about a young man who just died (tragically) and who's YouTube video was the most viewed these days...I don't know about you but for me that sounds like an international/worldwide coverage, doesn't it?! And even if that seemingly isn't enough to become 'notable' in the Wikipedia terms for 'Non-Wikipedian' humans, and even if seemingly Ben's large internet followership from all his YouTube subscribers and other internet networks / communities isn't a big enough argument for some here that this young man contributed quite a lot to this world in a positive way...where is the respect and caring humanity towards his family, his peers and all the people who where close to him and for whom these days are already challenging enough - without having to witness a public discussion if Ben is 'worth' an article on Wikipedia or not (as that's what this burns down to at the moment)... Some of you are concerned about 'making Wikipedia a better online Encyclopedia' - yet are not really bothered to make this world a better place, otherwise there wouldn't be such a discussion about if this article should be kept or not! Is it really so difficult instead of going through guidelines (which certainly have their place) looking for negative points which could maybe enable a deletion of an article, to make the shift to a positive attitude and taking a valid piece of contribution and turn it into what it really can be and should be: a reference point for people like me who are doing research on the internet on topics of interest... I don't know who initiated the article originally but I am convinced that given time more and more people who really knew Ben and care about him will be in a position to contribute and turn this article into a valid source of information about someone special and notable. Don't expect family and close friends to be able to write this kind of content so shortly after the event! Give them space, time and the due respect - is that really so difficult?!? There is already a former journalist and parent at Ben's school who would like to contribute to the article and I am sure there will be more valuable resources coming up - they deserve a chance to proof that the guidelines are/will be met. Speaking of which due to this whole incident I had a closer look at the guidelines today as apparently that's what you are going to take more in consideration than any common sense, authentic and from the bottom of their hearts votes: In my opinion WP:BASIC, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ENT (and in the future maybe even WP:ANYBIO) apply to this article. Give the ones who care about Ben and his life/work a chance to create and find reliable content on Wikipedia!Scarlet O'Mara (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Scarlet O'Mara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Weak keep - There is coverage in reliable sources, albeit for a single event. I suggest we let this one pass for the time being, and suggest opening a further AfD in, say, six months time. This debate reminds me of WP:Articles for deletion/Rhys Morgan a few weeks back, where I went for "Keep" mainly because I believed notable events of his were likely to increase in the future. That probably isn't the case here unless some well known person or organisation picks up this guy's story and runs with it. PS: Claiming Wikipedia is pro censorship is a great way to poison a debate quickly into bickering, distracting from the issues of whether or not an article meets the well known WP quality rules. --Ritchie333 (talk)
  • Reply Ritchie333, I am certainly not trying to poison a debate nor starting any bickering trying to distract from the issue and far more importantly I NEVER claimed Wikipedia is pro censorship as I have a very high opinion of this great 'institutional' website - all I said was that there are seemingly some people who like 'censorship' when they start a debate about such an article in such a manner...as I am sure that there might be other articles that could be more suitable for such a debate. And even if I take the risk here being also called a (vegetarian) 'meatpuppet' than it will be - it's not going to stop me expressing how this whole thing feels and that it doesn't seem right!

Or how can it be otherwise that there is such an ongoing debate with so many 'keeps' based on the Wikipedia guidelines?!? PS: Thank you for your (weak) keep 'nevertheless' :-)Scarlet O'Mara (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While a sensitive situation, a Wikipedia article is a Wikipedia article. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:NTEMP. (Secondary Comment - Keep arguments fail to detail Wikipedia policy.) - JoshuaWalker | Talk to Me 14:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Surely WP:NTEMP is in support of retaining the article - he's had substantial independent coverage from multiple sources. WP:BLP1E may be relevant here, but that would only lead us to move to Death of Ben Breedlove, (which I wouldn't support as the coverage right now is focussing on his life and videos rather than just his death) not deletion. Just quoting policies does not an argument make. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep""" - Ben Breedlove DOES fall within the guidelines! The Bullies on here talking about puppies and meatpuppets are not being neutral and are extremely innappropriate. You cannot call people "meatpuppets" because they strongly believe in retaining a page and have actual reason to support it! The mission statement for Wikipedia is an online place for knowledge and tens of thousands of people are seeking information on Ben Breedlove. Why? For many different reasons that are valid and legitimate. This is scary that anyone should even have to fight for this page to remain..is Wikipedia what it proclaims to be, or a popularity contest of members who are like toddlers stamping to have their own way. Like it or not, believe in goodness or not, Ben Breedlove is relevant, newsworthy, noteworthy, and has affected the lives of literally millions of people. Especially Teenagers! While we of an older generation have never given teenagers the credit they deserve, Ben has made it crystal clear. I am starting to believe that if anything even touches on religeon here, it gets deleted and THAT is not open and honest for an online encylcopedia. Everyone keeps stating "Wikipedia Policy", yet they are failing to actually spell out the words of the policies...Is Wikipedia a place for knowledge or not? A few bullying type members are saying this is a "memorial page"...Are there no other personalities on Wikipedia that are deceased? Does the article look like a "facebook memorial page"? NO. It is a collection of information on an individual who tens of thousands of people wanted to know more about and have been seeking. That does not fit within the Wikipedia guidelines?! You are so wrong and stubborn, you cannot see what you are censoring for the sake of your own personal opinions. I have started a petition on Change.org because of this...to keep Ben Breedlove's page here. I had no other choice because Wikipedia does not seem to be listening with open-minded ears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.235.150 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.235.235.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Comment. Being "an online source of knowledge" is not a stated mission of Wikipedia, as the above poster claims. You can learn more about Wikipedia and its mission and policies here: About Wikipedia. You also stated that posters are failing to spell out the policies they are stating. Many posters in this discussion have mentioned specific policies using approved shorthand links, for example, WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. By clicking on any of these shorthand links, you can read the entire policy. I hope this helps. --Crunch (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply I am the poster who claimed it is an online source of knowledge, said it was a mission statement. I did so because on the Founder's page, it is clearly said that is true. The purpose of Wikipedia was broken down into that simple statement. The reason it came about into existance is from that sentence. Check it out.

As far as Policy, I wish I knew how to use approved shorthand links to prove the worthiness of Ben's page, as I have come across many statements in policy that support it. When I cick on the links that some have listed for support against keeping this page, I am not convinced that they are proof. Possibly, the Policies are conflicting in this case and need to be reviewed? Also, as I have said before...the community members who have the strongest feelings that Ben's page should be deleted certainly have not taken to heart the other policies about discussion concerning mutual respect and border on bullying. I have also put forth that the deletion process needs to be reviewed. If there is as much confusion as there clearly is on this matter...I believe the Policies need to be looked at, reviewed. Do you think that is fair? An argument for deletion stating that one's Grandmother shoudn't have a page is weak. If Ritchie's Grandmother had 1,700,000 plus results from a "yahoo" search, I imagine he would be on the frontline to keep a page for her. Other arguments for deletion that are extremely troubling compare Ben's story to "puppies" and people who vote Keep to "shrieking meatpuppets." I challenge you to actually research this story, his impact, The mainstream media stories from araound the world...I challenge you to spend some TIME on this before shouting Delete. If you are all about the purity of Policy, then I publicly challenge you to put an open-minded, open-eyed look towards the Policies that this page fall under and actually click the links that people are using as proof. Now, on a personal level: Thousands of Teenagers are risking peer pressure and peer judgement (remember that?) to leave messages to Ben of how he changed their lives and will continue to change their lives in the FUTURE. That they will remember him for years to come and especially on Christmas. You have no right to conclude that they are lying or are exaggerating. thousands of people that fall into other age groups are saying the same things from around the world...that he will be thought of and remembered into the future. Are you the person who decides that they are just full of it? Are you the one to decide that this does not hold a place in Cultural History or does not become "noteworthy"? The mere fact of the numbers on this deletion discussion page is probably proof enough that it means something--that there is something here that is worthy of a place on Wikipedia. If there are ways to measure how many are viewing his page, it would be fair to use that and abide by what the numbers say. That can only happen if this page remains for them to see. Again, on a personal level: Sometimes "Miracles" are not just events that defy medical knowledge as in a movie. Maybe they are not parting of Seas or Burning bushes as heard in the Bible. Maybe, Miracles are smaller and still extremely valuable events where a person takes a different course in their life due to an inspiration. If this happens for tens of thousands of people, possibly millions, that is indeed Noteworthy. It should not matter if you agree, believe, or were there, if you are trying to determine the legitimacy of an event. If it didn't happen to you, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. I am asking that you clear your head of your own beliefs and look at this situation from that point of view: Is the event, the reaction to the event world-wide, the lasting affect...Is this worthy or not worthy of a page on Wikipedia. If you want numbers, I will post numbers every day. I will post again and again my interpretation of the Policies as they are written. I will remind you over and over of the purpose, as I saw it, explained of Wikipedia. Many others have offered up other pages that hold less importance than Ben's, yet have their permanent place on wikipedia. What troubles me the most is the tenacity in which a very few are trying to have this page deleted...for the sake of some kind of purity of Policy that isn't actually holding any water. These same few are picking apart sentences of others to the point of microscopic attacks on words that aren't even a part of the debate or ANY Policy. Man up, and at least admit that if both sides of the issue can cite Policy that supports their argument...then maybe the Policies are not clear or need to be retooled. In the meantime, there is International support for the importance of this young man named Ben Breedlove. If you would just take a step back and honestly check this out, you will see it is true. It's not right or fair to proclaim "Bleeding heart syndrome" when there is a real event happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.235.150 (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.235.235.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Good grief, chill out. For starters, you have overlooked that I have actually suggested to keep the article. You have also completely missed my (tongue in cheek) comment about my grandmother and set up a strawman argument around it, since my deceased grandmother does not have 1.7 million Yahoo hits. The number of web hits is irrelevant to notability, as has been well discussed at WP:GOOGLEHITS and a corresponding essay WP:GNUM, so please read those carefully. My point was rather this - my grandmother is dead, I miss her, she inspired my life and I have fond memories of her, but just being six foot under and fondly remembered does not make a subject notable, and if I tried to create a page about her, it would be speedily deleted quickly. My challenge to you is to calm down, take a deep breath, and go and edit something else on Wikipedia for a bit. Then, go and find reliable sources for other events than the ones linked to in the other sources relate to.

I resent your accusations of bullying. I could give you some examples of cyber bullying so you can tell the difference, but it would not be civil, so I won't. --Ritchie333 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -The shortcut for Google Hits also says.."The quality of the search engine results matter more than the raw number." For Ben Breedlove, the search results are mostly news articles, copywritten and reliable. I read it ALL carefully, as you suggested. Also, there is an important Policy that is inadvertantly getting mentioned heavily here, http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:ATA#CRYSTAL , which addresses that "Editors should avoid using one (Crystal Ball) when commenting in a deletion discussion. Many "Delete's" are going against the Crystal Ball policy.

I really don't want to seem like I'm picking on your Grandmother, believe me, but you keep using her as an example...It is apples and Oranges because although she was very special to you, she did not do what Ben Breedlove did-- affect the tens of thousands of people he did, receive the ongoing news coverage that he did, spring up Foundations and Charities for a family and medical condition as he did. So there is a glaring difference in which person should have a Wikipedia page and it is not based on worthiness to a few people, but should be based on RELEVANCE in the eyes of thousands.

Telling me to "chill out" and go edit some other article is not helping anyone. Yes, I am new here. I believe it is probably very normal that whoever was new here at any given point came here due to a particular subject that meant something to them...whether it was to create an article, edit it, or try to save it. What I do while I am here, or after this process, is my own choice. I am trying to manuever the best I can. That will not affect me continuing to put forth my interpretations of Policy in regard to Keeping Ben Breedlove's page. You won't intimidate me into being silent about how if there IS such a huge discrepancy in Policy interpretation, then it is highly possible that the Policy is not Crystal Clear. Anyone who may be interested in reviewing that honestly, will probably address that in the future. But for me, if this page is deleted..I can imagine that it won't ever come back and I find that to be a senseless tragedy. You may have put forth "Weak keep", but you seem very determined to have this page deleted. If you are confused about bullying, maybe just research the word a little further. There are certainly different levels of bullying with different results. Using name calling as an intimidation tactic is one...in fact here on Wikipedia there is an excellent article about bullying. I understand very well that when a person feels passionate on a subject, they may squiggle outside the provided boundaries and I admit to doing it myself.

The main topic of discussion here is whether Ben Breedlove should have a Wikipedia page and using Policies and Common Sense to determine that. I am going to have go ahead and have Faith in that the outcome will be that it remains...because it is right and it should.Petersontinam (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously too soon to make any kind of judgement about this person's impact, and too soon to request that the page be deleted. Time is needed to determine whether Ben Breedlove will be of ongoing interest to other people. So silly to see this debate at this stage. Let's leave the page on Wikipedia for a while -- can't the history of views on this page be logged daily or weekly? Let the numbers speak for themselves after a 6 month period. A Daddd (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — A Daddd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep The article currently has enough references to qualify as notable. is his notability fleeting? could be, but per our policies, as long as a person or event is notable for any significant period of time, its notable enough for an article that will be permanent. I have trouble parsing "WP1EVENT", but my best understanding is if there is an event of some significance, and a person is connected to that event, they do not automatically get an article. otherwise, every person associated with anything would get an article. It just means we have to use critical thinking and judgement. In this case, the "event" is essentially him. Unfortunately, our media structure means that recent events will get substantially higher volumes of coverage than many more important past events (though he may end up being even more notable than he is now). We arent here to determine if this is fair, only if the coverage is significant by objective measures (commercial/established media coverage, from neutral third parties, not just fans).(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.151 (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How dare someone try to take his wikipedia off. How dare you. His story was so inspiring and eye opening to so many people, he deserves to have a page simply for the fact that he truely did change peoples lives, and that there is significant information to put on his wikipedia, including links to his heart condition that can further educate people in our dumb society. Ive seen stupider wikipedia pages before in my life, this is not one them. --3:03 PM January 2, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.45.35 (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — 98.209.45.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please could you refrain from using emotional language like "How dare you" - it weakens your case. --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Direct Comment To Ritchie333: Asking someone to refrain from emotional language because it weakens their argument sounds terribly unfair coming from someone who said that the "meatpuppets were...shouting 'keep, keep, keep' at ear piercing volume..." I think you also used the terms meatpuppets shrieking...I believe you most definitely were leaking some emotion in your comments, so please try to be fair. Also, what do you have to say about other posts and comments that directly address Ben Breedlove's page as falling within the guidelines? Actually, I haven't heard one single word from the person(s) who put this page for deletion addressing the valid points that were laid out on behalf of keeping this page. Answer me directly, please, on even just the point about how the amount of debate and conversation on this subject is overwhelmingly showing how relevant it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersontinam (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please could you point out where I suggested the page should definitely be deleted. If you look at the discussion upthread, you will observe that I have made a suggestion to keep the article and review it in six months time. --Ritchie333 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial site. WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and a surge of reports because of a single event (in this case sadly his young death) - fails, WP:NTEMP - Youreallycan (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply -To "Youreallycan": I am not claiming that wikipedia should be a Memorial site. There are hundreds of Memorial sites for Ben breedlove. But Wikipedia SHOULD be a place that a person can go to look up Encylopedic information on Ben Breedlove. Nobody here is trying to leave Memorial Messages to him on his Page. On this Discussion page, people are saying how they feel which does include sentences that are favorable to Ben. If you "Yahoo" Ben Breedlove, 2,110,000 results come up. If you "Yahoo" Ben Breedlove Wikipedia, 105,000 results come up- Most of which are using Wikipedia as a reference! Using Wikipedia as a place to go to seek more information on Ben Breedlove, or are quoting information from his Wikipedia article. I don't know what else I can do to make this information sink in.

Again, people who are voting to keep this page are not looking for it to be a Memorial site. There are places like Legacy.com or Facebook for that...which if you are not believing Ben's wide and profound impact on our society, you should really check out.

• Ritchie, I asked if the person(s) deleting this page had any comment. What I said to you was that it was unfair to tell someone that using emotion weakened their argument when you also used emotion. I know that you put in a "weak keep", but you called a lot of people "shrieking meatpuppets" for wanting to keep this page. Tell me, when does this decision get made and how does that decision come about? Does anyone know who makes the final decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersontinam (talk • contribs) 00:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not called anyone a "shrieking meatpuppet" in this discussion. What I actually wrote was "there seems to a pile-on of meatpuppets shouting 'keep keep keep keep' at ear piercing volume". What I meant was that I felt the discussion was being drowned by many people who had never contributed to Wikipedia except to add to this debate, and stating to keep the article without citing relevant Wikipedia policies, which I felt would give the "deletionists" a better weighed argument. However, I decided to say all that in a less boring manner, and the only "emotion" I have displayed here is having a sense of humour!

Comment Sorry, Ritchie, but yes you did. "And lo and behold up turns another anonymous meatpuppet shrieking "keep keep keep" as I predicted" is your direct quote. It doesn't necessarily come across as humor. Maybe others hadn't contributed before, but they are contributing NOW. And doing their best because it is not easy to figure this out for most of us as we are learning. I think it is fair to say that most people who are voting to keep this page are doing their best to cite policies. Will this be a helpful... or hostile environment for those who are drawn to become a part of this community?..Petersontinam (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The point, which I've made elsewhere in this discussion, is that diving headlong into a lengthy AfD debate is one of the worst ways to get introduced to contributing to Wikipedia. Given you've come in and suddenly found yourself in a locked debate with people who have a reasonable grounding and understanding of Wikipedia policies, it's small wonder you've come across what you interpret as hostility. There are plenty of ways to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia that have nothing to do with AfD .. see WP:Contributing to Wikipedia and the associated videos. As stated elsewhere, if you have any further comments, may I suggest they go on my talk page. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, the decision will be made generally after around 7 days by an administrator. They will look at all arguments and decide what the best consensus will be. However, I believe that many comments from SPAs (ie: those that have been tagged 'x' has made little or no edits outside of this topic) are more likely to be discarded.

• Question -Would it be fair to say that this decision may be made on or around January 6th?Petersontinam (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest everyone who has made their debut on Wikipedia via this topic has started in the wrong place. There are better ways of getting used to WP editing - such as adding reliable sources to an established article or fleshing out a stub. For example, I created a page on Carlsbro that could really do with somebody writing a bit more about.

Could you also remember sign your edits (the pencil icon at the top of edit window will add the relevant tags) as it makes it a bit easier to work out who is responding to what. Also, if you have any further comments, could I suggest they go on my talk page instead, as the discussion is getting bogged down enough as it is. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - More than a week after Breedlove's death - let's see the stat's. More than 325,000 article views (in the 5 day existance of the article); More than 330 different news articles from around the world (that are still coming out every hour or so) - Television News: KXAN; ABC News; KXAN; KXAN; CNN; CBS; Network Ten ~ Both viral video's have a combined total viewership of 5.9 million (2 Videos's; 10,000 subscribers). YouTube channels - Breedlovetv (29,000 subscribers) OurAdvice4You (64,000). Then you have celebrities such as, Kid Cudi; Kim Kardashian and Jennifer Love Hewitt tweeting about Breedlove [6]. News outlets have also commented multiple time's about Breedlove's two main channels being "popular". 11,000 viewers online watched Breedlove's funeral, courtesy of KXAN; 1,500 attended. My question - Who here can definately say with certainty that Breedlove will become - "Un"-notable in months to come? Can you also definately say that his YouTube accounts that have made him an internet personality will decrease in subscribers and viewers? Or his viral video's will decrease in views? Or simply just the fact that the top three fan-based Facebook pages on him, have a total of 105,000 "likes" - will those go down in likes too? Draw your own conclusions. -- MST☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 02:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is now making me believe that this nomination was very hasty at the least. What's the point of nominating this article for deletion when notability will surely be established in the weeks/days to come? Article now has 345,000+ views. Gnews plenty of results. Generic Google search lots of results. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to add that Organizations still doing articles about Ben include the Wall Street Journal, People Magazine, and National Public Radio. Please, Will Wikipedia see this is relevance?Petersontinam (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this post should be kept because on the basis that wikipedia is an encyclopedia site and this is basic bio about Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insaneinnixa (talk • contribs) 03:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC) — Insaneinnixa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Even if the biography is to be removed due to policies regarding entries for individuals the information contained here is worth keeping. It may be merged with other links if needed. His youtube posts were very powerful as it addressed one of the fundamental questions of human existence (whether god exists or not). I have been considering myself an apathetic agnostic for years until the recent death of Steve Jobs (and his final words) and the videos from this kid. Wikipedia should serve (in whatever proper way it suitable) to preserve the information surrounding the life of this individual. The article could be expanded to include citations of the key parts of the video (preservation of the youtube video is out of the control of wikipedia but preservation of the essential aspects of the video is WITHIN that control). Final note: this discussion is worth having and it is one of the fundamental aspects that makes Wikipedia existence worth of support. I have donated every year in the last 3 years in support of wikipedia and this is the first time I take time to create an user account and join a discussion. This is by no way to be constructed as an attempt to use influence as a donor to the content of wikipedia (that will kill the wikipedia concept I support) but it's my personal account of why Wikipedia is important and different from other encyclopedic sources. Being able to recognize the relevance of keeping this article (again, modified as needed) within Wikipedia is what makes it special. I presume a lot of the claims for removal are from people that want to keep Wikipedia clean from religion (I tend to be one of those) BUT I cannot dismiss a clean, honest account based on my personal bias (go now and check Huston Smith and Why Religion Matters)Petrvsco (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)— Petrvsco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - per our actual policies, as opposed to all the glurge from single-purpose accounts and anonymous drive-bys. This is an obscure dead blogger who's getting a brief bubble of notability, a matter covered under "Subjects notable only for one event" and "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site". --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply -To Orange Mike- I respectfully disagree with the Policies you listed. 1. Notable for only one Event; A big part of that policy is if the person and event should have two separate articles. Also, it said that some subject specific notability guidelines provide criteria that may support the notabililty of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.

Also, The Policy "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site." - This Policy is speaking about not using the "User" pages for blogging or networking or dating services. As far as Memorials, it is against Policy to use the Wikipedia page as a Memorial Page, which Ben Breedlove's page is clearly NOT. It is an informational page which hopefully will be around to have more INFORMATION added to it.

Also, I may be considered a "single purpose account" so far as there has not been any time to do anything but try to defend this page, but I AM reading the Policies...all of the words and not just the blue titles. If these Policies are going to be cited as a reason to delete, it is only fair that they are completely read and not just convenient titles put forth. We could go back and forth with Policies and our interpretations of them for months, but then I would have to say that the continuous interest in this person would also put Ben squarely, solidly in the category of Relevant and Notable...Even including thoughts of people who are "Anonymous Drive By's" because they cared enough to come here and be heard the best way they knew how. I'm not sure how to prove that to you shy of demanding that someone get out there and do the research on the continual articles, relelvance and reaction...that some people who don't believe the "Keeps" just please take the time to scout around out there and see what they are referencing. If I'm frustrating you, I'm sorry...but I also feel frustrated with references to Policies that are not fully working to prove Deletion points.

Lastly, this is a discussion page, right? The page that the Administrators are going to use in consideration of if a Wikipedia page is going to be deleted. All discussion, Policy references, and snapshots of opinion on the Notability of a Subject are surely relevant here on this page? Petersontinam (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy references are the primary thing a closer should take into consideration. - Users commenting out of policy that are single issue recently created accounts should imo not be counted at all in a closers consideration. Currently, I am seeing around 14 decent deletion comments and around a dozen worthwhile keep comments a weight of opinion that resolves to WP:No consensus - and what we usually do it resolve to keep and then in three months when the news has gone out of the story and there have not been any article updates we renominate it and delete it then. - Sadly wikipedia policy seems unable to deal correctly with such articles while they are of short term interest to multiple facebook users. Perhaps we can create a short term article status - newsworthy - keep for three months. Personally, I think we need to be stronger in opposing such as this facebook memorial stuff straight away rather that allowing the educational and encyclopedic aims of the project to be demeaned by such trivia. He didn't warrant a wikipedia biography before he died and he doesn't now either. - Youreallycan (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply -You just had to say "facebook users" didn't you? I am a 46 year old woman who is so Facebook illiterate, that my daughter had to post pictures on there for me and I still have to ask my teenage son for help. I am old! But not too old and senile yet to not be able to recognize a human who deserves a place here. Can you please understand that people voting to keep may not be in the narrow category you have pigeon-holed them into? Please? Why and how is it that your personal opinion of a subject as being "facebook memorial stuff" is ENOUGH to take away the legitimacy of the subject? If you are all supposed to be academically inclined and somewhat neutral, why can't you see that a subject is noteworthy and relevant to thousands and thousands of people, even if he is not noteworthy to you? You run dangerously close in censorship and complete snobbery on what is considered "relelvant information". This is not about what a few members deem so beneath them...this is about what is relevant and notable to the World. I refuse, yes stubbornly, to believe that Wikipedia is all about ONLY things that reach some stratospheric status of snobby education that can only be a few people's OPINION of what is important enough.

You couldn't be more correct about someone like me being here as a single issue and recently created account. I created the account so I was not anonymous...because you chastise for that also. I have tried to become familiar with this community as best I can within what is only a few days. But the hostile, snobby environment from some and complete lack of purity in trying to determine if this young man deserves a page here is nauseating. If you were truly interested in what information is relevant, you would not accuse people with a different viewpoint as being "facebook users" and their subject matter as "trivia" that is "demeaning" your PROJECT. But it is becoming overwhelmingly clear that this environment here at times is vaguely familiar of a playground where those that think they are better will not condescend to "play" with the kids who are new. Knowledge is many things to many people. An event or person who brought about more knowledge, along with changing tens of thousands of people's perception of one of the biggest questions to humans...that is notable. Period.

Wikipedia, you'll do what you think is best...but to some of the users here: I know that legitimate Policy questions and comments were given by many and if you choose to ignore that then you are not doing what you claim to be, no matter how intellectually superior you think you are. For me, this was sincerely never intended as a place to come to get into arguments with others about the relevance of someone I believe changed people's lives and continues to do so. I feel that I have done more to shame Ben Breedlove's name by letting certain users get to me so badly. But I do know I tried; within your words, parameters, and guidelines, to bring valid points to a discussion. Petersontinam (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO1E. The individual is Breedlove, the event is his death (unless anyone can put prove that Breedlove would be notable if he was still alive today). BIO1E states: "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event." Breedman's death, however tragic, is a minor event (he's received media coverage because of the touching nature of his story, not because it was important world news) so the only article that should exist is Death of Ben Breedman. But I would argue that even that article should not exist simply because this is not encyclopedic material. Lots of things get a sudden burst of media coverage, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic, which should be the determining factor for inclusion in an encyclopedia. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Within WP:BIO1E there is an example used that I would like to borrow with a different angle-Rodney King's article. The actual event was, of course, major; but equally important was the social significance of the event and the aftermath. It addressed an important social issue, raised debate and awareness (police brutality), etc. The events relating to Ben Breedlove also address important social issues (life after death and religeous beliefs) , awareness for his illness, inspiration, and something of a cultural phenomenon- Tens of thousands of teenagers affected enough to speak out and make life changing decisions. Teens weren't the only ones affected, but they are the ones whose world involves the most Internet communication. Internet personalities are as relevant to them as non-internet personalities were to us a decade ago. The "Evening news with Tom Brokaw" is now Youtube.Like it or not, that should be respected and that change in information feed acknolwedged.

It's too easy for some to label Ben Breedlove as just a sad or tragic event being measured up to see if it meets requirements...but without truly researching everything connected to what this event has caused, the ripples, how can it be judged so quickly? Ben is much more than a tragic event...He gave a gift that is impossible to put value on, to millions of people. The research to become aware of this doesn't really take long and you shouldn't begin to make a decision to keep or delete without taking that time. I would hope that any action as important as deletion had good faith time and research behind it by both editors and administration.

There aren't very many articles on wikipedia that had any more than a "sudden burst of media coverage" if you really look at them. Very important people and events do not sustain full media coverage for very long...there is always new news. Does that make them less significan or in danger of being deleted? Perhaps it should be more about the wide reach, intensity, and significance of a person/event than about the length of time the event is saturated. Also, Wikipedia states that it is not a news page...which leads me to believe that it does matter when a person has significant relevance (with their peers and others) and that relevance is not dependent upon their length of news coverage but on their contribution.Petersontinam (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep WP:BIO1E seems to apply to people whose identity needs to be preserved because of one event, like victim of a crime. however being known for one thing, his vlog, is different from being known for his death. however if this needs to be deleted then it should be renamed to death of ben breedlove, but i think this way is better. Bouket (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That many news sources covering this guy, makes him notable. Diverse major news sources are covering this guy, many of them listed in the article already. Dream Focus 15:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we are not the news. The single event that provoked coverage, the death, while tragic is not significant, and we are not an obituary either. Hekerui (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Common Sense If you can remember when you were new here, then take pity..Here are some examples of articles already existing on Wikipedia. I predict that some will say that is not a reason, but please try to understand that I am using them to show you what you have already deemed noteworty, credible and relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=The_Bus_Uncle -, http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Sophie_Merry -, http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Really_Achieving_Your_Childhood_Dreams -, http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Keyboard_Cat

You get my drift. On many articles like these, a heading titled "Social Impact" or something similar would follow. Ben Breedlove is surely as significant as any of these types of articles. Someone like Randy Pausch, http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Randy_Pausch - had a similar impact as Ben did. In Mr. Pausch's article, more events happened after his death and I believe that will happen in Ben's case as well. This Wikipedia page should be here to record those events. So, a keep would be common sense if you are looking to maintain the types of pages that are already in existence. Reasons for that have been listed for deleting such as no further media coverage, or single event..well, couldn't that be applied to hundreds of articles already here with the same types of event status? Please think about this. Petersontinam (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teenager makes You Tube videos then dies. Delete. I feel sorry for his family but this is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.106.54 (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — 92.235.106.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• If you actually want people to listen to your [non-intelligent] comment, you'd better be citing WP policies in your comment and to stop being sarcastic when it doesn't make anyone laugh. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 12:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the above logic was to be used, then I'm afraid that Editors here are going to be very busy deleting hundreds of articles already on Wikipedia. Everything from Tyson the Skateboarding Dog http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Tyson_(dog) to Shiro the cat who lets people put things on his head. http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Shiro_(cat). There is more to Ben Breedlove's story and event and the imformation is out there to be looked at if an Editor seriously wants to weigh this debate in the most fair and honest fashion. I don't feel that this discussion is ridiculous. I DO feel that an article on a cat who lets people put things on his head is ridiculous, but I am not going to judge that it is not relevant or worthy to many others. This is my point! Anyone who is making a decision on if Ben Breedlove's article will remain at Wikipedia...please make that decision based on Criteria and not on personal opinion.Petersontinam (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't argue that the presence or absence of a related article justifies your own, since WP:Notability affects all articles equally. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 22:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I'm not trying to say that the presence or absence of other articles justify this one, though I know it looks like that; What I am trying to prove is that other articles passed the criteria and so should Ben's. I'm trying to show that editors here deemed these articles and the subject matter as noteworthy and relevant. I'm trying show what I believe is the common sense of Notable.Petersontinam (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are many articles on Wikipedia that, if given appropriate scrutiny, would not pass notability standards. It is not possible to adequately police every article at every moment. This is not a reason to add yet another inappropriate article. In other words, see WP:Other stuff exists --Crunch (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Frankly, I'd never heard of the guy before he died. Even his "This is my story" videos. Yes, it's tragic, and yes, it's moving, but I doubt seriously that he'll go down as a historically significant individual. "Wikipedia is not a memorial." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.99.175 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — 74.37.99.175 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Reply -Respectfully, because any one of us has not heard of someone is not the reason to delete their information. I have not heard of 90-95% of the subjects on Wikipedia, but I would never suggest that they should be deleted because I have not heard of them. If there was a policy shortcut for that, I would use it. (There should be a Policy for that) Also, I don't think that many cats and dogs from videos are going to go down as "historically significant individuals", yet they have their place here on Wikipedia. This person, Ben Breedlove, has made a significant impact and it grows with each passing day. Please recognize the social and cultural event that has happened.Petersontinam (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong Keep He was on TV, had 2 videos viral due to his sad death. Even though it is just 2, it is important. Even if it is two.76.254.27.221 (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.254.27.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep I am seeing reliable coverage by multiple sources. Even if someone argues that there are not enough sources to meet the requirement or that it fails BLP one event, this is an example where WP:IAR would apply. There have been over 370,000 people who have come to Wikipedia for information about this person. Removing this page would be hurtful to the encyclopedia because the high number of people seeking information on Ben Breedlove would not get it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that argument, we could introduce a lot of unencyclopedic material just because thousands of people want to know about it. Thousands of people are seeking information about celebrities' sex lives, but that's not an excuse to provide that sort of information. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply But the reason TO have an article about a subject that thousands of people are seeking is...??? I have seen policy go back and forth, over and under, and around and around. When proof is needed of Ben's relevancy and then given, someone says it is a lone event. When someone cites policy that covers that, someone says this is not a memorial site. When proof is given that this is not a memorial article, then someone says Wikipedia is not a news site. When proof is given that this subject is more than a news event, then someone says they have never heard of him. When it is pointed out that 370,000 people HAVE heard of him and have viewed his article, then someone says "thousands of people are seeking information on celebrities' sex lives." ??? And yet if I point out that an article about a cat video has been deemed noteworthy here, someone quotes a policy that you can't compare articles.

Do you know what this looks and sounds like to the outside world? It looks like some members of this online encyclopedia are on a mission to not let this article stay and their reasons are weak.

Everything you have asked for has been addressed. Have you done the outside work of researching this? Deleting an article should require as much responsibility from users as creating one. I would hope that Deletes have been put through fairly, after taking the time to check on the relevance and noteworthiness of the subject.

The petition at Change.org has over 200 signatures and the "reasons for signing" I am reading deal with a profound change to their lives. As well as the awareness increased for Ben's illness. The locations from the signees have been almost every state in the United States, and at least 7 other Countries.

If you can still state that this person is not Notable, that the after-effect phenomenon is not also significant...after all the numbers- - numbers of articles, numbers of articles that reference Wikipedia as a source of information, number of views to the Wikipeida article (these numbers are not weakening), numbers from the videos, numbers of people that have become involved......Then I have to come to the conclusion that there would be no proof possible for a Wiki member who has decided that they personally don't want this article. I have come to the conclusion that it's not really about being noteworthy, but about some selective process that can bounce policy shortcuts around until everyone is dizzy. At the very least, this article should be given time. Petersontinam (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment: And, by the logic presented by Ryan Vesey, if Ben Breedlove really has long-lasting notability, there should be hundreds, if not thousands, of independent news sources documenting his life, death, and impact on the world. A missing Wikipedia article won't mean that people can't easily find information online about Ben Breedlove. --Crunch (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Reply -Crunch, is that the logic that Wikipedia uses then? That what does it matter if an article is deleted, there are other sources of information out there? Weird, I did not get that impression from the hours of reading I have done to try and understand the Policies, guidelines, and help sources.Petersontinam (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. No, obviously that's not the criteria that Wikipedia uses. My point was that if people will be lost for information if a Wikipedia articles on Ben Breedlove doesn't exist, as has been argued here, then he probably isn't that notable to begin with. If he were, there would be plenty of other sources for information. The argument that a Wikipedia article is necessary for people looking for information about Ben Breedlove is contradictory to the claim that he is vastly notable. --Crunch (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Crunch, I truly don't think that anyone said they will be "lost for information" if Wikipedia deletes Ben's Article. There are plenty of other sources of information, which has been pointed out repeatedly to support Criteria required. What I have seen is people claiming that there should be an article on Wikipedia. The absolute main objective of this discussion page is to support or not support the deletion nomination's claims. Notability was the key claim in the deletion nomination, along with if it is an unworthy single event and Memorial.

To me, you just saying that somehow he isn't notable because people are looking for information on him sounds incredibly weird and backward. Seriously, are you saying that a notable person is someone who would NOT have thousands of people looking for further information on him? I am not being sarcastic, and do not understand your logic at all. I have read your sentence 4 times and I am not "getting it." By the way, the article itself has had plenty of support saying it is not a Memorial and is well written and sourcedPetersontinam (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability is established. Whoever wrote the "Death and aftermath" section understands how to source an article. American Eagle (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but provisionally. I'm tempted to think this will eventually get deleted as a WP:ONEEVENT biography, but there is simply too much noise about on the topic right now to make an informed decision on the matter. The article is impeccably sourced and quite well written, so I do not see any harm in waiting (say) three months and having another look then. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC),[reply]
• Strong Keep - because it is notable. There are a lot of sources, it passes Wikipedia:Notability. Cissy15 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No question about it, the article does not meet notability standards / does have the 'one event' status. That there have been lots of hits on the page (and comments here) is highly probably connected to the change.org petition and, once this immediate furore dies down it will be even clearer that the article was unwarranted in the first place. There is no long-lasting notability here. --AlisonW (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the article, I see references sourced from the Daily Mail, the Washington Post and Fox News amongst others. While WP:BLP1E is still up for debate, the single event itself certainly seems to have been covered in multiple, reliable sources from my point of view. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply -In referencce to the Change.org petition; while every signature is legitimate, valid, and underlines the relevance of Ben Breedlove, there are 221 at this moment. That could not possibly account for 30,000 hits in one day. Also, the petition was created, by me, long after hundreds of thousands of views of Ben Breedlove's article had happened. As much as I would love to think that I helped to contribute to the mass amounts of views, I know realistically that the petition had nothing to do with it. The number of views are from people already fully aware of Ben Breedlove & who were compelled to seek information on him through a search engine. Wikipedia is usually the source at the top of the list that comes up when you search, so I would imagine that people choose it first.

To head off comments citing that Search Engine results are not criteria, please let me remind you that the context of that policy is referencing the fact that the amount of hits can be skewed by technology trying to make numbers look larger. Can't find the shortcut right now. I take that to be meaning don't always trust that the numbers are accurate, as opposed to that numbers are not important.

Also, please consider this-http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:GEOSCOPE "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." I realize this is not a weather disaster, but there has been impact over a widespread societal group. Also this-http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:EFFECT "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable."Petersontinam (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • A vast amount of interest in being generated, the most sensible editors seem to suggest a review of the article in a month or two's time. Immediate deletion would provoke a very strong reaction. We also have the difficulty of determining whether Wikipedia itself is notable seeing that its contributors are all male and aged 25, on average. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.172.15.183 (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — 101.172.15.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment - Why are so many people citing BLP1E here, in a case where it obviously does not apply? Swarm ^X 20:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply - okay, I'll also refer you to WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NODEADLINE and WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply -Orangemike, the information under WP:CRYSTAL states "It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses." I would take that and what I read under Crystal Ball as trying to predict the future of a subject either way would be fruitless and inappropriate. Many "delete" votes here have claimed that this article will not matter (some have said it doesn't matter to them already) in the near future. I realize now that I shouldn't try and predict either. But 10 days out there are still new stories and important articles such as the one involving HCMA and the HEARTs act reported from the Wall Street Journal today. I'm not trying to predict, but that can be a valuable link to this article because the HEARTs Act became more significant due to Ben. He is a catalyst for the extra awareness that may push that Bill faster through Congress...his event brought attention to it. If I could figure out how to add it to the article, I would...but I'm struggling terribly. The point is that this article needs time. If I have misunderstood you, I am truly sorry.Petersontinam (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, see the posts by people like JohnWBarber (below), predicting that "this is a rising meme" and "there will be books written about this kid", etc. This is why I invoked WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UPANDCOMING. This could be forgotten in a month or two, or it may actually amount to something. If the latter, no problem; we create a new article on solid ground (not blog posts and one-cause websites). There is no deadline in Wikipedia, and the fact that people want to use this kid's death to promote their WP:NOBLECAUSE is totally irrelevant. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was not created on "blogposts and one-cause websites". The news references were listed many times in this discussion...even with shortcuts. The references listed in the article are valid news organizations. A discussion on policy about which news organization are considered pure in the day and age of mostly online media coverage is a discussion for another time. Right now, Wall Street Journal, Herald Sun, National Public Radio, People, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, and Fox News are considered legitimate news sources and not one-cause websites or Blogspots. Yes, predicting has happened on both sides of the issue...I also did it without realizing it. I also cited a relevant article that helps prove notablitly and happened 10 days out, but you won't say a word about that. The logic to hastily delete an article because it can be brought back does not make any sense to me when the article is proving to be notable. Because the subject matter of the article has ties to goodness, religeon, and hope is proving to be a handicap to it here. This place called Wikipedia...Where Jim Wales imagined a place where "every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we're doing."[49] I am not so naive as to think that there shouldn't be strict guidelines for how that human knowledge earns its place here...but again, restricting knowledge here because some deem it beneath them, or trivial to them while a majority (out there in the world) feel that it has true substance; that is wrong. It's wrong.

Also, This discussion page has been an example of many Policies being interpreted very differently. Nobody is perfect, but with the changes in our world on how we receive news, the global connectivity, and the speed in which we receive it, Policies may need to be tweaked constantly to keep up.

Also, Be careful when you say someone is "using this kid's death to promote their noble cause." That really comes across as ignorant. In fact, the snideness in general that I have seen when referencing a human life and death here has been atrocious. Here in public where the world can see what you have written...from the people who are supposed to know better.Petersontinam (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Woah—just making sure people realize that it doesn't apply in this case. WP:BIO1E may be a different story. Swarm ^X 03:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Hundreds of thousands of people have shown some level of interest in the subject. After I saw the news pieces about him, I came here to find more info. Two of my friends did the same. This is what Wikipedia is for... to give people more info on popular issues. Breedlove and his story are quite famous now. If that's not "notable," really, what is Wikipedia for? Sh76us (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per User:Dravecky above. Meets notability requirements. Renominating after the emotions have died down might be a good idea. Killiondude (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Possible Keep The subject of the article has been the focus of extensive U.S. media coverage, which has been properly cited in the article. The arguments for deletion are incredibly ignorant. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this should be a biography article, but let's consider it as an event article (which is an alternative that policies encourage us to think about). It's very likely that the source coverage of Ben Breedlove is not some passing event, but one that will get continuing coverage because it touches on subjects such as near-death experiences, religious belief in an afterlife and viral videos. Articles in newspapers and magazines, as well as books and probably academic journals as well, will likely cite Breedlove as an example in various contexts. It is easy to expect that, for instance, Ben Breedlove's descriptions of his near-death experiences being cited by articles. Should it be an event article rather than a biography article? No. Who would really be surprised, given all the interest in this, that books would be published about Breedlove's life -- not just his death, and not just his death and the videos, but his entire, short life? His near-death experiences are very likely to be explored by sources independently of what he himself wrote about them in the videos. That indicates a depth of coverage worthy of an article. His life as a whole is going to get coverage in sources that themselves try to balance each aspect of his life (that is, we're inevitably going to read about what he was like, what he liked to do and other challenges in his life in biographical accounts in various media), and it's a stretch to call his various near-death experiences together with his videos about them and then his death as being all one "event." The circumstances around the article are serious enough that we'll have lasting coverage for years to come. Whatever is going on in his Afterlife, he's an "after-death" celebrity. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP i'm belgian and wanted to learn more about Ben. He's not anymore a random person. Keep the page to inform others about why he isn't just a random guy. (Nhintjens (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)) (Nhintjens (talk))— Nhintjens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• KEEP . . . HCM is a serious and not well known conditiion that kills young people every year. My nephew has HCM and had to have an ICD installed about 5 years ago, and replaced just this past month. If having Ben's story told on Wiki helps get the message out to those with HCM, then what harm is done here? P.S. I found this site on my own and did not come here at the request or suggestion of anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeshareVon (talk • contribs) 05:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — TimeshareVon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia does not exist to promote your cause, however noble it may be. Abuse of Wikipedia to promote a cause, however noble, is spamming. Full stop. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply -Orangemike, there is a distinct difference between promoting a cause and the actual fact that someone notable ties two pieces of information together. On the Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) article, Ben Breedlove is now listed as someone notable who was affected by this disease, as well as the diease being appropriately explained on Ben's article. I don't think the person above was at all trying to promote their cause or spamming. The definition of spamming http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spamming&redirect=no , as I understand it, is putting forth wide distributions of advertising in marketing a product. Would you consider that the person above was stating a personal experience and only trying to underscore their thoughts on the importance of both HCM and Ben Breedlove? I hardly think they were trying to market a product. I also was not trying to market a product, but was pointing out a press reslease. Because of Ben Breedlove's impact, HCMA is trying to increase awareness and further medical research of this disease. That makes Ben notable and significant when a high profile medical organization, who are involved in introducing legislation to congress, believes Ben to be a widely recognized figure. Just because you say "however noble", does not take the sting away of accusing that person (or me) of spamming.Petersontinam (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

clarification - within Wikipedia, we use the term "spamming" to describe any form of promotional editing, be it shamelessly commercial or for some honorable purpose, in part because decent human beings associate the term with repugnant behavior and do not want to think of themselves as spammers. That's why we have the essay at WP:NOBLECAUSE. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ?? - Orangemike, I went to that Essay link. The nutshell of it was about writing an article on an organization, not trying to prove notabilty on a discussion page. I do not believe that the poster was spamming. If I was, I had no idea that I was. My intentions were to prove relevance, link two important pieces of information. If I mention a bill going to congress, I wasn't trying to spam with that either...again trying to prove significance of Ben Breedlove's impact as seen in an article HCMA Articleon most news agency websites. Again, there is more to an essay or Policy than just the title. When I read further, I have been suprised they are being cited as reasons for deletion or, as with this last one, as doing spamming.Petersontinam (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to IdeaPad. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lenovo IdeaPad S10-3s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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