< 28 October	30 October >

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 Jayron32 05:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Octavio Carranza Torres[edit]

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)).

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

Very low number of citations in Google Scholar but some presence in a regular Google search. ~~Author~~ Co-editor of at least one book. Was awarded the "National Mexican Logistics Prize". However, he doesn't seem to be notable according to WP:PROF or under the general notability guideline. CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He does not seem to be author of a book, just mentioned in it. Does not seem to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you Xxanthippe. You are right. Changed it above to co-editor of a book (source). CronopioFlotante (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not endorse- Extranisimo-I would like to make some comments over Octavio Carranza Torres. He is certainly the author or co-author of two books (The Bullwhip Effect in Supply Chains and Logistics best practices in latinamerica)and is in the process of publishing two more, Operating from Mexico, and Supply Chain Performance Measurement Systems. If you check his book "Logística Mejores Practicas en latino America", you will see that 60% of it is authored by him, and this is because when you make a revision of practice in such a huge region of Latin America, it is practically impossible that one person can resume all the knowledge developed in that region. He is an authority in Logistics in Latinamerica because of many reasons. The first one, he generated the first compilation of Logistics for latin america. The second public university in Chile mentions him as the "main spanish speaking author", which can be checked at Universidad de Valparaiso or at his page (http://octavioacarranzatorres, testimonials). The mexican national logistics price is awarded by 11 institutions (including the local chapter of the CSCMP, the APICS, the main professional associations in Mexico). This price is certainly the main logistics price in latin America, and was declared vacant in his category for three years, which enhances the merit of the award. The second reason to be considered an authority in Latin America is that he created the first Benchmarking Logistics program addressed to companies. The third reason is that his prestige is such that he has promoted an MIT research center in Mexico, with the authorities of the state of Mexic, which is potentialy the main research center MIT will have outside from Boston. The relevance of his first book is related to the National Logistics award he won. When looking at Logistics in Latin America, the first book of such type -in spanish- for all the region, a book that can be looked at Google (Logistica Mejores Prácticas en latino América), and in the many university library that exist in the region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extranisimo (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Do not endorse-Logisticstudent-I have been a student that has used Logistics Best Practices in Latin America-The first thing I want to say is that there are many books that could be used as a text for a course in Logistics. This one made really a difference. It was not only the only book that presented Latin American cases, but that it was written in Latin America for Latin Americans. We enjoyed very much this book, and I believe that this only fact would justify having Octavio Carranza Torres in Wikipedia: Logistics has revolutionized the economy of many countries, and here we have a book that explains how this revolution can be materialized. I have a sincere appreciation for Dr Carranza´s work, because he was the first author that was widely used in my university -Tec de Monterrey-. I believe this book has been adopted by a myriad of other universities in Latin America, that go from Colombia -EAFIT- to Chile, Argentina -IUA-, Perú and Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logisticstudent (talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Leave or modify this article-Intelectual2-I believe the perspective that Cronopioflotante takes is too wide: WP:Proof is not a complete measure of the relevancy of somebody in a discipline or even a region. I believe also that only looking at this article from an academic perspective, is a narrow focus. And I would like to give two examples: DHL in MExico -contact luis.erana@dhl.com who is its general director- uses the book abovementioned -Logistica Mejores Prácticas en Latino América- as the head manual for any new trainees in the company. This means that there is no other book that serves as well for this purpose. Logistica Mejores Practicas en Latino America is undoubtedly a classic in Logistics for many practitioners, and Google won´t probably reflect this. The relevancy of this work can be looked at from the fact that no other work existed in this field previously (the opinion of relevant experts is very important in this matter, look for example at www.iese.edu, which hosts the first MBA of the world, according to The Economist). A second reason why the activity of this person should be considered as relevant is the position of Mexico in the WOrld, and its logistics oriented situation. Octavio Carranza is a reference for Logistics in Mexico, and by the way, his work remains a reference for anybody who wants to look at logistics in Latin America, or Mexico, which could be termed one of the main logistics poles of the world (see for more information the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals that this author wrote over Mexico).[reply]

Delete. The article is very badly written and formatted, badly sourced, and suffers somewhat from crystal ball-ism: it has too much about what Carranza is going to do when it should only be about what he has done. And some of the article text is copied and pasted from Carranza's web page (or vice versa, I suppose). Despite all that I was prepared to look through the article and try to find some notability in it. The only thing I see, really, that could save the article is the subject's award, the 2005 Premio Nacional de Logística. But, though I found a few web pages that mention it, in Google News I could find only two articles from a Chilean university that mention him only briefly in connection with a seminar that he visited. I have to conclude that, with no Spanish-language press on the award, it is not an especially notable one. Without that, and without other evidence of passing WP:PROF, I don't see why we should keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability has not been made manifest as required. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

intelectual2-This is a comment for David Epstein-I have recomended to rewrite the article,so I agree with you in that it is somehow poorly writen -even though the article in itself does not say nothing about what Octavio Carranza is going to do-, but there are two issues that should be stressed 1-You can check his web page -since you are comparing the article with what this web-page says- to see that in Testimonials that there is an express mention about his prestige in spanish speaking countries (the most well-known author in spanish speaking countries, "el autor más importante en Logística en lengua hispana"). To check this information you should address this information, probably the director of its industrial engineering career, Esteban Sefair, esefair@yahoo.com.ar. I certainly know about this announce because it was a matter of discussion in many universities which I advise. 2-As regards your comments about no Spanish-language press on the award. You can check http://www.premiologistica.com.mx/jurado.php, to see who evaluates this price. There are two of the main latin american journals in logistics, but I would add, God save us from having our intelectuals and practitioners being evaluated by the interests of (spanish speaking) press! I would make a simple question, while listing the members of this jury, Could any editor ever replace the quality of this associations?

Representantes de las siguientes Secretarías de Estado: Secretaría de Economía Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes Asociaciones en el ramo o sector de la Logística: Asociación de Ejecutivos de Logística, Distribución y Tráfico, ASELDYT Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) Capítulo México Asociación para la Administración de Operaciones (APICS) Capítulo México Asociación Mexicana de Transporte Intermodal (AMTI) Instituto Mexicano de Ejecutivos en Comercio Exterior (IMECE) Organismos Empresariales Cúpula: Confederación Nacional de Cámaras Industriales de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (CONCAMIN). Confederación de Cámaras Nacionales de Comercio, Servicios y Turismo de la República Mexicana (CONCANACO). Instituciones Educativas Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) Universidad Anáhuac México Sur Unidad Profesional Interdisciplinaria de Ingeniería y Ciencias Sociales y Administrativas (UPIICSA) del Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN) Instituciones y organizaciones difusoras de la logística EXPOLOGÍSTICAM.R. Revista Énfasis Logística Revista T21 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)+

Delete, rather clearly fails PROF with a minimal citation record and no other evidence of significant impact. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no claim of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kittens At Play[edit]

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

Contested ProD. Prod summary added by Excirial was

“

No indication of Notability

”

Intelligentsium 23:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7) as there is not even a claim to notability here. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. Crafty (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:BAND and no sign of notability. Basket of Puppies 01:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep (Non-admin closure) by Intelligentsium.

Lount[edit]

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

Not notable. Small village with a population of 50. Only two claims of notability: 1) a murder took place there in the 18th century, and b) it's linked to a specific estate. (Oh, and the author of the article was born and raised there - I guess that's a claim of notability). Singularity42 (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep Aren't geographical places notable? Now granted, it's a small town, but I thought the consensus was for places to be automatically notable. Is there a minimum size defined somewhere? Bfigura ^(talk) 23:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never came across a guideline for towns/villages. I'm not sure if it's possible to make a population number cut-off. For example, would 50 be a problem, but 51 be okay? At the end of the day, WP:N applies. If there is a more notable location this village is associtaed with (such as Staunton Harold, then I would withdraw my nomination in favour of a merge. Singularity42 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a guideline on how big a place has to be in order to be automatically notable? Generally, it seems that we set the bar quite low on locations, so long as they appear on a map, but maybe 50 is pushing it a bit. Nearby Staunton Harold is only 113 people but it is an official parish and has census data, which Lount doesn't. I guess I am leaning towards a recommendation of "weak delete" or "merge" to the nearest location which does deserve an article, probably Staunton Harold if it falls within the parish. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A village. Joe Chill (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep since it is indeed impractical to make a population cut off, we have adopted the practice of considering all distinct inhabited places as notable. They merely have to be verifiable as a village, not for example a house that happens to be named on a map. I wish very much we had such simple and effective guidelines for other topics. ` DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, I had no idea there was that consensus when I made this nomination. If that consensus already exists, though, then obviously I would withdraw my nomination. Singularity42 (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - I'm not withdrawing my nomination at this time. What I meant is that if someone can point me to a consensus somewhere that indicates that a village, not matter how small, is automatically given its own article, then I would withdraw my nomination. Until then, I still think the general requirements of WP:N should apply. Singularity42 (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no official policy or guideline stating that, but WP:OUTCOMES#Places and WP:Notability (geography) indicate that it's standard practice. --Chris Johnson (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - All Municipalities recognized by governments, atlases or other significant documents are inherently notable. WP:5P clearly states that, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." hence using this core policy because municipalities are one of the core topics of Wikipedia and Encyclopedias in general such articles, like this are notable. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a village then it is notable as per normal practice as the article for rolling up other topics on the locality that are not notable enough for their own article. Keith D (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inherent notability. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Keith D. It just needs expanding to include both historical and contemporary information. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 10:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable, because it is a village. It has been in existence for hundreds of years and, although there are not a lot of reliable sources for it, that is mainly because a lot of sources we use at Wikipedia are on the Internet and the best place for sources on villages is indeed an atlas or government listing such as censuses, surveys etc. Because Lount is a part of these, it has notability. Please do not think that notability can only be established by books and websites. Jolly Ω Janner 15:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - I'm convinced! I find Jolly Janner's point especially convincing - a small village will naturally not have a lot of internet information, but may still have a history found off-line. Singularity42 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009-10 NBA matches[edit]

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

mainly because WP:NOT#STATS as Wikipedia is not a place for excessive statistics. I also question the notability of the article as it documents ordinary NBA games.—Chris!_c/t 23:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an article, nor useful since the same info can be found in many places -- including newspaper websites and the NBA's own website. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From a notability standpoint, I don't think this level of detail is "excessive". Some statistics are OK. However, I'm not sure an article like this is a practical endeavor at this time. We already have the game logs, and it's hard enough to keep those updated. I wouldn't bother with an article like this unless we had three or four times the amount of people regularly working on NBA articles. Otherwise, it's just a drain on our resources. Zagalejo^^^ 05:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am in agreement with the nominator that this does represent a violation of not as a set of detailed statistics. -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 30 teams, 82 games per team-- there are 1230 regular season games alone, not to mention the playoffs. Tempting as it is to track the results of every game on a Wikipedia article rather than on a website that one can't edit, the rules of WP:NOT#STATS and WP:NOT#NEWS are right on point here. Mandsford (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Newspapers and the NBA pay people to process this information, no reason for WP editors to do it for free. We should have better things to do. Northwestgnome (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You know, having some sort of repository for stats from every game, every sport, going back as many seasons as possible, would be an interesting project. But this doesn't mean it's a good encyclopedia article. Notable matches, season series, and events can be added to 2009–10 NBA season in the usual way. Kudos to Hhoshy 90 for taking on such a daunting task, though. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:33, 3 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Goodnight Dream[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Anon editor removed PROD tag without any additional contributions. Singularity42 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Getting some downloads on Purevolume does not establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a search of Google News archives, and also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find any sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find anything to verify the information or establish notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:01, 31 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Spike[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources on this. Is it notable? The only source it cites (and apparently stems from) is a character's hairstyle in The Incredibles (film). A little insignificant ^{Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH!} 22:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC) A little insignificant ^{Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH!} 22:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a NN hairstyle. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, can find no references for this per WP:RS. MuffledThud (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a hairstyle, it lacks any sort of coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People were spiking their hair to various degrees long before The Incredibles came out. Mandsford (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2009 (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 Already redirected. --Tone 16:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Foster Comprehensive School[edit]

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

This article is a complete farce. It has no relevance to the Waterloo Road programme to cite its own article and is factually incorrect. Harleyamber (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As you have said Harleyamber, the article is totally wrong. On Waterloo Road, the school has been merged so John Fosters does not exist. It certainly does not require its own article and just by looking at the article says it all - the information in it is a joke. Above anything it implies that all the Waterloo Road teachers now teach at John Fosters. D.E.L.E.T.E! 92.20.222.142 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without any references to verify it we can't tell if it is correct or not. It is not linked from the Waterloo Road article or it's template. Looking at that template, I was surprised to see so many articles for a pretty minor soap and, while none of those strike me as egregious, this one is a step too far. If this school was only introduced to the plot in order to get merged then there can't be much to say about it. It doesn't need an article. There are unlikely to be any reliable sources to reference it from. Three Google hits and two of them are us! --DanielRigal (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is somewhere to merge to, as a major setting in an extremely important series. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have got to be joking DGG - a major setting??? John Fosters school was never seen, its just been merged with Waterloo Road. The article is utterly false too. It suggests that John Fosters is still open and that the entire teaching staff of Waterloo Road work there, which they dont. There is already a mention of it in the Waterloo Road Comprehensive article and that should be enough - certainly not an entire article that has no fact mentioned within. Harleyamber (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree tjhat the article should be deleted. The Waterloo Road Comp article already mentions the merge with John Fosters, it does not require a whole article to itself. And on reading the it all I can say is - what? John Fosters was also a private school, not a comp Newtree21 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Waterloo Road (TV series), assuming that there's something here that isn't already there. Mandsford (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a section on the merge of John Fosters in the Waterloo Road Comprehensive article and a mention of it in the Series 5 section of Waterloo Road (TV series). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harleyamber (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Zahrai[edit]

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

Most of this article repeats the existing article about Iranian.com. This lady has just joined as its business manager, but that does not make her notable, and I do not see evidence that she is notable in her own right; most of the references are from Iranian.com, as far as I can see none of them mentions her, and what I see on Google is mostly LinkedIn, Facebook, Naymz etc MuffledThud (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no cverage in reliable sources about this person, and the article lede is a copyvio from here. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see independent coverage. (It's odd that the Iranian.com link Whpq gives refers to her as "Bianca Zahrai, Esq.") JohnCD (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the suffix of "Esquire" in the USA generally denotes a practising lawyer. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Two nations divided by a common language." This side of the pond it's an almost obsolete formal way of addressing (e.g.on an envelope) a man. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. I'm Canadian, and and don't really see that term used often. Whenever I do, invariably it's read in my mind with Alex Winter's voice and character from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My resume is as impressive as hers and I certainly don't deserve a page. Pdcook (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Keller[edit]

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

No references (and with Google I wasn't able to find any independent reliable sources either, only self-published ones like press releases), obvious conflict of interest, article has already been deleted previously three times (on 12 December 2008, 7 February 2008 and 1 April 2007). Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any reliable sources that discuss him. All the significant coverage seems to be self published. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V - I can't find anything that would support hsi inclusion in the encyclopedia. Article has POV issues. Maybe COI as well? Crafty (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. JamieS93 03:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Severns Valley Baptist Church[edit]

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

Non-notable church which seems pretty local. WP:CHURCH is not an actual notability guideline, marked as historical/no consensus attained, which points us back to WP:GNG. Nothing significant about this church, and it lacks notable reliable source coverage as evidenced by web and GNews archive searches. JamieS93 21:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out, folks: I forgot Google Books, one of the most obvious search engines. It's been a while since I've done this AFD/notability stuff. Withdrawing and closing. JamieS93 03:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the church. Nothing to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I must have been to quick and not looked at the book search, my fault. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no reliable sources. SnottyWong talk 21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG and lacks significant coverage. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe Chill's find. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 23:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 23:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 23:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local church is local. And lacks notability. Crafty (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC) changing to Keep Crafty (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per this Google Book search. Joe Chill (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Chill. "Oldest Baptist church in Kentucky" does it for me.[1][2][3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxiloxos (talk • contribs) (oops! my apologies for forgetting to sign--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - blame Joe Chill. Crafty (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it turns out the church was historically important, which is what the references show. Given that the gbooks search was right there in the line under the article title above, I really wonder about the people who said "cant find reliable sources". The nom may not have searched, because those links don't appear until the AfD is actually added, but the people who commented delete apparently never even tried to look, though they said that they did. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reproach D. We now consider ourselves well and truly told. Crafty (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lyons (literary agent)[edit]

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

Article is an autobiography of a non-notable person. Any notability is by association only. No significant coverage to be found in Google web or news searches. Reference provided verify facts about other people, not about Lyons herself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claims to notability all revolve around other people. She does not appear to be notable in her own right. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since I'm conflicted. Notability shouldn't be inherited, but aren't agents typically judged by their clients? (However, this may be a moot point if no reliable sources discuss her -- in which case, the Nobel Prize-winning clients don't mean much). Bfigura ^(talk) 03:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is never about merit really, and I'm not even sure noble prize winners are inherently "good" , being noted for mediocrity or being noted for being the most obscure agent would meet notability guidelines. See comments on talk apge. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims of notability through her clients do not make her notable, and claims are vague at best anyways. Beach drifter (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I mentioned on the "Talk" page, I have looked at several other entries for agents and agencies that have been accepted for inclusion (i.e., Christopher Little, Barbara Bauer, United Agents, Abrams Artists Agency, Eulama, Conville and Walsh, Wendy Keller, Terry W. Burns, etc.), and am not sure how these entries differ fundamentally from ours. In addition, there are several talent agencies of various specialties that are each allowed an entry. If someone could provide more concrete editorial advise so that Ms. Lyons may too join this community of agents and representatives with a Wikipedia presence, it would be greatly appreciated. I respect this site very much and never intended for things to become so involved. (FYI: I am the sole user of this Login representing Ms. Lyons.) Thank you for your time, patience, and assistance. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeLyons (talk • contribs)

Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF. The presence of other bad articles on Wikipedia is not a reason to keep this particular bad article. Also, several of the articles mentioned by JeLyons are actually quite a bit better, as significant third party coverage exists for those agents, which cannot be said for Ms. Lyons. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see my response on talk page. You need to distinguish an encyclopedia from an advertising medium. Clearly the hope is to make information more accessible to others but the idea is to only parrot what others have found notable and of something approaching archival value. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todd and Penguin[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this webcomic has received any coverage from independent reliable sources. As far as I can tell the bulk of the article is original research (The Themes and character interactions and Evolution sections) and the rest is effectively a plot only description. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states that "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers" and topics should be treated in an "encyclopedic manner" - without any third party coverage this will not be possible. The general notability guideline gives significant coverage by reliable sources as the criterion for a topic to warrant an independent article whilst the specific guideline for web content states that "primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability" - this topic appears to fail on both counts. Guest9999 (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this webcomic. Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto, nothing is turning up in a Google search. Warrah (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of any independant sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The Jungle Book characters. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chil[edit]

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

In my opinion, a pretty clear case of a character that is too minor to warrant a standalone article. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the above --President of Internets (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of The Jungle Book characters, which is the best alternative to deletion. This is a plausible target. Cunard (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Jungle Book characters. Edward321 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2009 (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 Moot. This content was deleted by User:Jesse Viviano under CSD G10 partway through the AfD. NAC closure for cleanup reasons by —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Fag enabler[edit]

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

Westboro does use the term, but I don't see that it in itself has any notability beyond WBC. Can't find any sources discussing the importance of the phrase itself - the only references I find are in relation to WBC's campaign. Even so, it's only one of dozens of phrases WBC uses, so it doesn't seem that this phrase has specific independent notability. I'm also concerned with the BLP issue. NellieBly (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WBC, or maybe merge with a homophobia-related article. As a standalone article, this is fail on a stick. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete criterion G10 (tagged). Seriously. It's an offensive term and the content is a list of people who are alleged to be described by it. Imagine if the content of Nigger or Jap was a list of people. Guest9999 (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G10 - for future reference, RFD, not AFD, handles improper redirects. Intelligentsium 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page wasn't a redirect at the time the article was nominated ([4]). Guest9999 (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally a redirect, but since it had been expanded into an article I wasn't sure if RFD was the appropriate place to take it. --NellieBly (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Velayas[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Article does list two published books, but the publisher, Llumina Press, "provides personalized self-publishing services", negating a claim to notability by being a published author. Without that claim, there is nothing to support a claim to notability. Frank | talk 20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VSCA. Notability not established. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While self-published works could in rare circumstances be notable, there's no sign this author is one of those exceptions. Edward321 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analyx[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created twice by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Analyx consulting. Was speedied under WP:CSD#A7 previously.

This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Analyx_sp._z_o.o._sp._k._.28II.29

Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Nothing more than Self-promotion and advertismentt, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. I am finding it hard to see a clear assertion of notability here anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Insufficient coverage to document notability. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:54, 30 October 2009 (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, OR. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of band theme songs[edit]

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

How has this stayed for all these years? The list is highly objectionable, and no sources are cited. A classic case of WP:OR. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - so place a tag on it requesting sources. The list is easy to define. Is it the band's theme song? Yes or no. There's no ambiguity. Kingturtle (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what defines a "theme song?" I don't see any resemblance of a theme (of the band) in "Whiplash" by Metallica, "Helena" by My Chemical Romance, and "Droppin' Plates" by Disturbed to name a few. Most of the songs are just a title of the band, or very close to the title of the band. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 05:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The examples you provide should be removed from the list. Kingturtle (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as founding member of 3 Inches of Blood. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC) My mistake, entered in error. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been many weeks now. Shall we leave the article be? Kingturtle (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Change to Delete as entirely OR. No verifiable claims of a notable topic. ~~Add tags for context and sources because I don't know what defines a band's theme song, either. Can revisit if no improvement.~~ An administrator needs to fix this though. This was nominated on September 24 but was added to an archived AFD discussion for September 9. There's a second AFD by the same nominator as well added a few days later. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 9 --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: This discussion was improperly placed on the September 9 log rather then the 24th, so I have relisted so it can be viewed by more editors. --JForget 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Stale article from Wikipedia's days when they would take anything. Not just original research, but very badly done original research. When I saw the title, I thought it was about the "Big Bands" from pre-rock 'n roll days, and those bands actually did have their own signature tunes. This appears to be a list of self-referencing songs, where a band has cut a (generally) obscure song that mentions the band's name. "One hit wonders" might have a song that they're obligated to perform 40 years later at the county fair, but most bands are too cool to play a "theme song" about themselves in a concert. The fact that most of these aren't blue links ought to be a clue. Mandsford (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stale is not a legitimate criteria for deletion. And who are this they that you speak of? And no, they (whoever they are) didn't "take anything." Kingturtle (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but unsourced, badly done original research is a criterion, and this is from bygone days when mentioning where you got the information was optional. I wish I had been on Wikipedia in 2004, when people didn't take it seriously, and there were lots of creative articles, and it was more fun. By the time I came around in 2007, "they" had built up "their" article base and "they" put in a deletion forum to start questioning what used to get taken for granted. I got slapped down the first time I ever had a creative idea for an article; if I'd posted it a few years sooner, it would probably be up still yet. Now, Wikipedia is the first place anyone looks for information, it worries more about the reliable and verfiable thing than it used to, and it's not as freewheeling as it was five years ago. In both cases, whether we're talking about 2004 or 2009, "they" refers to the Wikipedia communitiy in general. For better or worse, "They don't make 'em like they used to". Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then give the article a citation tag and give it time to be updated properly. There is no need to delete it when simple hard work can improve it. Kingturtle (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm of two minds. On the one hand if there was an article on Band theme songs this would seem like a reasonable complement to it (assuming only notable, reliably sourced entries were included). However there isn't and despite the fact I would have imagined band theme songs to be a reasonably established concept I cannot find any sources that could be practically used to support such an article. Guest9999 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely there's some cleanup to be done, and indeed some excision for dubious entries (Why is "Short Skirt/Long Jacket" Cake's "anthem"? Or "Where the Streets Have No Name" for U2? "Dance Dance" for Fall Out Boy?). But this isn't outright original research, as there is ample material out there on self-identifying songs. Chubbles (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is really based on people's subjective opinions. The term "theme song" is also not defined in this context so we can tell if these are really theme songs of the bands listed. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How do we define "theme songs"? Just because a source is found doesn't make it one (conflicting sources and all). Rather than have a giant list of opinions, delete the poorly defined list. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective waffle on a bunch of B-listers. I agree with Northwestgnome, the lack of definitions, sources and objectivity means it's hard to see why this should stay. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, also per WP:V as there isn't a citation in the list. Also per Mandsford's assessment of our growing reliability and the inherant subjectivity of what constitutes a theme song. Them From Space 23:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I understand this concept as applied to, say, "(Theme from) The Monkees", I would prefer to see some kind of sourcing to establish that this concept has been recognized outside Wikipedia, to avoid original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am recommending a delete due to the continuing problem of original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What exactly is the "continuing problem"? The "problem" has only just been raised. Shouldn't you give the article some time to respond to the request for citations? Kingturtle (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Appears to violate WP:OR, until some sources are added backing up the article's claims. With so many supposed theme songs I should think there would be at least a few references given. Assuming sources exist stating that certain bands have "theme songs" it would be better to recreate this article from scratch and document those claims. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then tag it with a request for Citations rather than deleting the entire thing. Kingturtle (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a userfy. I recognize that you started this as a straightforward list of self-referencing songs, and somewhere along the way it was edited to refer to these as "theme songs", which some persons would consider as a famous song that typifies a band (hence someone's addition of Where the Streets Have No Name for U-2). I recall something like that in The Book of Rock Lists (Simon & Schuster, 1994). It can be an encyclopedic topic; there are some very well-known songs that were recorded when a band plateaued out on their climb to fame. An example is the Beatles' Glass Onion (the Ballad of John and Yoko would be an alternative). Another is Cover of the Rolling Stone. It isn't always obvious-- I didn't know that the Creeque Alley was the name of the Mamas and the Papas song that has the refrain "and nobody's getting fat except Mama Cass". But speaking of fat, there's plenty that can be trimmed from this list. I'd volunteer to assist in straightening this up. Mandsford (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. There's no real way to define a band's "theme song". I also agree that it is hard to see why this should stay. talkingbirds 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, but there *is* a real way to define it. Just use published lists and definitions. It isn't our responsibility to define it. It is only our responsibility to find the sources. Kingturtle (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But if the sources cannot be found in the first place, then we can't verify anything on the list. If we can find sources that can verify some/all of these theme songs, then I would love to keep this list. talking birds 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If sources cannot be found, the challenged material can be removed, which could result in a blank article. The creator of the article (or some other interested party) should really add some sources as soon as possible to make this list worth saving at all. It's an interesting list but requires defining, such as what is the difference between a theme song and a signature song? A little more context would be helpful. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under what basis are either of you supporting your claim that "If sources cannot be found"? No one has even started looking for sources yet. Kingturtle (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you created an article without having any sources to go by and that you don't know even exist and expect them to magically appear through other wikipedians research? This just screams OR then. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article because some bands have theme songs. And the topic is of interest to some people. Sources were not part of the puzzle at the time. Now they are. It is quite simple to find sources. So why not just tag the article with a request for citations? Kingturtle (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is quite simple to find sources." And yet in 5½ years, you haven't come up with one? --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been asked. That's what the Citation tags do...they ask :) Kingturtle (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But you've been aware of a citation issue since September 24 when this was added to the AFD discussion. I haven't done well finding any sources online, so please, as someone who wants to save this article, add even one or two. It's quite simple, right? --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy with many things and haven't had time to find sources. What they Citation tag does is gives the article some time to get up to par. I won't necessarily be able to dig up citations this week (I'm in the midst of a PhD process), but I know during some breaks (like Thanksgiving and Xmas) I will have that sort of time. Kingturtle (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest making a copy of this article in your userspace and, when you have the time to look for sources, edit that copy. Assuming this article is deleted you can then recreate the article with enough citation to satisfy notability and verifiability. Adding a citation tag to the article would have been good, but since it is up for deletion I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a few sources to demonstrate that the article isn't original research. I think most editors that see an article that makes this many claims and has no resources listed will consider it original research. Narthring (talk • contribs) 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my experience that editors who encounter articles without sources place a tag atop the article requesting citations. That's the AGF way to proceed. Kingturtle (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My initial objection was, in retrospect, over nothing more than the name of the article, which is not a very good reason for deleting it. I think many of us who have said "delete" have had the initial reaction: (a) This says it is about "theme songs" (b) This was not what I was expecting and (c) This cannot be fixed. Since theme song is an ambiguous term, and since many of us tend to associate that term with the opening music of a television show (i.e., "Boss of Me" being the theme for "Malcolm in the Middle"), a more appropriate name should be affixed to it. The common thread in the delete !votes is the lack of a definition of the word used in the title of the article, and I'm not in favor of deleting an article for its title-- nor, for that matter, for keeping a bad title at the expense of losing what can be a good article. Scrap the title, edit and source the content. Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem isn't just the name, rather the whole idea. The content is a list of songs "which identifies the band's key sound and image, as well as describing itself". I simply don't see a way to generate that list while sticking within NOR and V. Even if every item was sourced, we would essentially have a sprawling unending list composed of varied opinions from a range of music critics as tho what songs best identified a band's sound and image. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)--Bfigura ^(talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the difference between original research and lack of citations? Kingturtle (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been a Wikipedian longer than I, so I'm taking this as a rhetorical question. I guess my answer would be that if there are no citations, there tends to be a presumption that it's original research -- i.e., a fact is drawn from one's own memory or judgment, rather than from a source that one can point to. I agree that what some would call O.R. is what others would call "common sense", for example "Hey hey, we're the Monkees!" would be an opening line one would expect to have been intended as a self-reference by The Monkees. My feeling is that the article, as you originally intended it, was to start a list of those type of songs. Back in 2005, it wasn't uncommon to start a list and to add the invitation for others to contribute to it; and, as part of the encouragement to others, to not remove someone else's addition. For better or for worse, the trend now is toward making articles cite their sources, or at least get a start on it. My observations are that (1) There are, indeed, deletionists who live for the thrill of nominating an article the moment it gets posted, or to root out a long standing article; (2) There are, indeed, inclusionists who will fight to keep an article that is sourced, or that can be (put another way, they live for the thrill of rescuing an article); and (3) That some articles can't be fixed immediately (we all live in the real world and our spare time is limited), and when that's the case, it's better to move the topic to user space so that some fixes can be made. Everybody here, whether we call them a deletionist, inclusionist or neutral, has a goal of improving Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My question actually is not rhetorical. Thousands of Wikipedia articles have been tagged by users with ((Unreferenced)), allowing time for the article to come up to par. I honestly don't understand why that solution doesn't apply to this case. Kingturtle (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that people are skeptical that a reference tag will lead to any action, particularly with a list article. Using the ctrl + F to search how many of those tagged articles are lists, the count was 36 of the first 5,000 and 73 of the next 5,000. I'd prefer to see it userfied and worked on, then to take the chance that it won't be deleted. I'm not sure how much longer we have until an administrator makes that decision. Mandsford (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to Kingturtle's userspace. Since the creating editor states the citations can be improved and more time is needed I see no problem with sending the list to userspace in the hope it will be improved and recreated in the mainspace. Narthring (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jason DeRulo. Merge to Jason DeRulo is there is anything useful. Till then, redirect. Tone 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason DeRulo (album)[edit]

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

Contested Prod - Par WP:CRYSTAL Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be deleted. Information was confirmed and can be changed/added to in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.39.11 (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete! Info Confirmed and added and more info will be added in the future as the release date comes closer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthersrock16 (talk • contribs)
Merge to Jason DeRulo I've added one supporting ref from Reuters, so not such a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL which allows for notable works to be described before their release. See also Category:2010 albums. MuffledThud (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything worthwhile to the article about the artist. Enigma^msg 00:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvagable to Jason DeRulo. It's too soon for the album right now, and not enough information is available right now to warrant an article. talking birds 22:38, 3 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webdental[edit]

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

Marginal company that asserts no notability. Refs are from a PR wire and a link farm. Little more than advertising. Bonewah (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a website that fails to meet Wikipedia's reuirements for reliable third party sources, as of yet, fails to meet the general notability guideline and the criteria for inclusion under Wikipedia's notability guideline for web content. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not an article, but spam for an online dental community. Please. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stack n Rack, Inc[edit]

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

Contested PROD - A search revealed no real indication of notability - also borderline advertising Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've removed the history section as a copyright violation as it was copied from the company web site. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that the article does contain one source [5] which is not sufficient to establish the notability of the company. Additionally, the article is entirely promotional. As noted above, some copied material has been removed. And note that the single referenced source identifies an employee as "Lacy Youngblood" which is also the name of the article creator. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many concerns to keep, including WP:CORP and WP:COI. I can ignore COI if the article is well-sourced and neutral, but WP:CORP needs to be met as well, and it ain't. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:09, 3 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrika Yfanet(Thessaloniki)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Par WP:ESSAY and WP:OPINION Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The article is entirely opinion. I have no idea if the factory and the events are notable, but if they were, this article would still need to be rewritten from scratch. As such, it is irredeemable and should be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for washing their dirty laundry, in public with WP:SOAP and for speaking borderline WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find a speedy criteria that fits properly, which is the only reason the article remains. A description of the site would be acceptable, if sourced - but this is just an essay. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 23:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Hekman[edit]

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

I'll be happier once this article is run through AfD. The most one can say about this assistant professor's h-index is that it is non-zero. Article seems like a vanity page to me, with photo. Article claims his work on pay disparity has been been mentioned quite a bit in the media. Is it enough to pass WP:PROF? Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - David Hekman is a notable academic because he has published four top-tier academic business articles, which fewer than 5 percent of business professors have done. ^[1] He is also the lead author on a paper that has been featured in many of the most notable media outlets including The New York Times,^[2] The Washington Post,^[3] The Boston Globe,^[4] The Globe and Mail ^[5] and National Public Radio.^[6] This is quite rare for his field (business management), as most full or chaired business professors have not had their work featured in these outlets. Hekman has also had a different academic article of his featured on This American Life. ^[7] diversity23 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - David Hekman is a notable academic because he has published four top-tier academic business articles, which fewer than 5 percent of business professors have done. ^[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.193.244 (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC) — 68.248.193.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References[edit]

^ White, M.C., Barnett, T., Bowers, W.P., Long, R.G. (1998) "Research productivity of graduates in management: effects of academic origin and academic affiliation." Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 704-714.
^ Bakalar, Nicholas (2009) “A Customer Bias in Favor of White Men.” New York Times. June 23, 2009, page D6. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/health/research/23perc.html?ref=science
^ Vedantam, Shankar (2009) “Caveat for Employers.” Washington Post, June 1, 2009, page A8 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102081.html
^ Jackson, Derrick (2009) “Subtle, and stubborn, race bias.” Boston Globe, July 6, 2009, page A10 http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/07/06/subtle_and_stubborn_race_bias/
^ Waugh, B. & Moscato, D. (2009) "Customer Prejudice: Women and Minority Employees unfairly evaluated" Globe and Mail, June, 22, page A1. http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/ubcreports/2009/09jul02/prejudice.html
^ National Public Radio, Lake Effect, http://www.wuwm.com/programs/lake_effect/view_le.php?articleid=754
^ Glass, Ira. (2008) "Ruining It for the Rest of Us" Episode 370. Original Air Date December 18, 2008 http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio_episode.aspx?sched=1275
^ White, M.C., Barnett, T., Bowers, W.P., Long, R.G. (1998) "Research productivity of graduates in management: effects of academic origin and academic affiliation." Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 704-714.

Weak delete - I dislike the h-index, but prefer Google scholar, which shows only 8 Ghits, so in any case, I see little evidence of notability under WP:PROF, at least as of now. Also: not a full professor yet; not a department chairperson yet; no major awards yet, etc. FWIW, even I have citations in the popular press. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But under the general guidelines, not WP:PROF. Like almost all assistant professors, not yet notable as an academic under WP:PROF. But it is necessary to actually look at the citation record, not just count. Using the proper citation index, Scopus, which finds 4 papers, all in good journals, citations 5, 0, 0, 0. But this is not quite what it seems, for the 1 with 5 citations was his doctoral work, published in 06, and the other 3 only in 09, so they cannot be expected to have published citations yet. The work reported by the papers is none of these, but a paper that is still in press "Hekman, D.R., Aquino, K.A., Owens, B., Mitchell, T.R., Schilpzand, P., Leavitt, K., (in press) “An Examination of Whether and How Racial and Gender Biases Influence Customer Satisfaction.” Academy of Management Journal. This paper has apparently attracted attention in the newspapers, as is not unusual for a paper on "hot-button" topics. The newspaper attention is significant, and makes him notable. It may or may not attract academic attention. the article needs some rewriting, and I started in on it. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and FWIW, publishing 4 articles , though a little more than the average faculty member does in most subjects, is not enough to make faculty notable as such. It depends on the articles, and in the academic world their influence and their impact on the profession is measured by citations. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article claims notability. Research gives the appearance of notability for the author for the one paper. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Xxanthippe (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As DGG has correctly argued above, he does not satisfy WP:PROF. The only claim to notability seems to be the media attention on "An Examination of Whether and How Racial and Gender Biases Influence Customer Satisfaction" ~~where he is one of the five authors~~. It does look like a case of WP:BLP1E to me. CronopioFlotante (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete He obviously fails PROF. Is it sufficient under GNG that his paper has been discussed in a couple of newspapers? I think that requires setting the bar rather too low. If it is kept, further cleanup will be needed to resolve issues of self-published. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. He doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF yet but the media attention to more than one of his studies is enough for WP:GNG, I think. In response to CronopioFlotante: if it were only the one study, it would be a case of BIO1E, but the American Life piece is about a different one, I think. As for "one of five authors", the NYT article calls him the lead author. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the non-alphabetical ordering of authors suggests that he is the lead author. Fixed my statement above. On the other hand, the non-alphabetical ordering of authors in the article that appears in American Life suggests that he is not a lead author of that work (he is listed third). Also, it is not him who is interviewed but Will Felps (presumably the lead author of the paper). CronopioFlotante (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has been well established above that WP:Prof notability is not met. The subject's work on hot issues in social anthropology has garnered a few newspaper articles, not uncommon for that topic of popular interest. However a much more substantial record is needed for notability. For a researcher who publishes in the scholarly literature many hundred of citations to dozens of refereed papers are usually needed for notability. I am unwilling to accept that one article in a newspaper is somehow equivalent to a hundred citations in the refereed literature although I am not able to say what sort of equivalence can be established. The article has been created too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Xxanthippe makes a well-reasoned argument. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Follow-up. Are the first two opinions at the top from the same person? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Question - The field of business is quite new (the top journal, Academy of Management Journal, is only 52 years old), and the initial couple decades of research in the field done by business gurus can hardly be considered research. The WP:PROF guidelines basically exclude faculty from new fields because the fields are small (which means low citation counts), the pioneer faculty were typically not researchers (e.g. business gurus), and the best work in the field is the most recent work. Should Wikipedia include faculty from new academic fields? Diversity23 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

52 years is pretty old for a journal. Still, I understand the point of your argument; the early work in developing fields is done outside of traditional academia. However, all this means is that it is typically documented in books, not journals. Google Books searching will uncover these sources. Abductive (reasoning) 18:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Per diversity - Ret.Prof (talk)

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead in the Family (Novel)[edit]

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

Contested PROD - par WP:PLOT and WP:CRYSTAL Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. My searches show that WP:CRYSTAL isn't an issue. Joe Chill (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is for an unreleased book that consists only of plot. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. If sources show that the book (upon its release) is notable, then an article may be appropriate - but this is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:48, 3 November 2009 (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. Also editorially redirecting to Dore. Sandstein 15:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dore[edit]

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

Delete: The slim evidence of the events at Dore does not support a historical "Battle of Dore". The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that in 827 Egbert of Wessex led an army to Dore to receive the submission of Eanred of Northumbria. ("827... This year was the moon eclipsed, on mid-winter's mass-night; and King Egbert, in the course of the same year, conquered the Mercian kingdom, and all that is south of the Humber, being the eighth king who was sovereign of all the British dominions... This same Egbert led an army against the Northumbrians as far as Dore, where they met him, and offered terms of obedience and subjection, on the acceptance of which they returned home.") Even the local inscription which is pictured in the article says nothing about a battle. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The chronicler Roger of Wendover says "829 When Egbert, King of the West Saxons, had obtained all the southern kingdoms of England, he led a large army into Northumbria, and laid waste that province with a severe pillaging, and made King Eanred pay tribute" (quoted from Whitelock, English Historical Documents), p. 255. Patrick Wormald refers to this on p. 129 of James Campbell's The Anglo-Saxons (1982), p. 139; he says this derives from earlier Northumbrian annals incorporated by Roger. Yorke (Kings and Kingdoms, p. 96) also mentions Roger but does not seem to believe his account entirely, saying it was more likely that there was a "mutual recognition of sovereignty". If Patrick Wormald believes a battle took place, that's a reliable source to base something on. Whether there's enough material for a separate article is debatable. Mike Christie (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed, Roger's account provides evidence of fighting led by Egbert in Northumbria, but it isn't evidence of a battle at a place called Dore, wherever that may have been. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article could be somewhat fleshed out, the photo of the monument is notable and confirms that a historical battle costing lives took place there which is good enough for me --Jemesouviens32 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Er, no, the photo of the monument does not confirm that a historical battle took place. If you read what it says, there isn't a word about a battle or loss of lives. That is part of my point! There are no references for a battle at Dore, not even the monument there, which can be expected to err on the side of drama. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to keep above The stone says, quote "King Ecgbert of Wessex Led His Army To Dore In The Year A*D 829 Against King Eanred Of Northumbria By Whose Submission King Ecgbert Became First Overlord Of All England" So he moved an army, forced submission by force of arms and became overlord of all of England, how is that for a couple days/weeks work? As my comment above would like to see more about this specific military/political event being a history buff, but regardless, this is a keeper.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Moonraker2's point is not that the military campaign and submission did not happen, but that there is no evidence, even in the sources quoted, that a battle was fought at Dore. I agree; the little that the sources say is covered under Egbert of Wessex, with nothing left that would be specific to this article. Mike Christie (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mike am confused are you saying the monument is some kind of a hoax? Again here is the transcription, bold is mine The stone says, quote "King Ecgbert of Wessex Led His Army To Dore In The Year A*D 829 Against King Eanred Of Northumbria By Whose Submission King Ecgbert Became First Overlord Of All England" No evidence? Looks pretty convincing to me.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: We need to wonder why the writer uses those particular words. If there had ever been any evidence of a battle at Dore, then no doubt that monument would say so, because its whole purpose is to claim Dore has a historical significance. In fact, the monument rather evades the point. There are more-or-less reliable sources for fighting by Egbert in Northumbria, but this place called Dore isn't even in Northumbria. The Anglo Saxon Chronicle describes an event at Dore (which may or may not be the same Dore, these things can get very obscure, see Battle of Ethandun) which is not a battle but could be a treaty. You could compare the event with the Treaty of Wedmore, perhaps. Indeed, at this site I've found the following mention of a related article: "HOFFMAN, H.C., King Ecgbert and the Treaty of Dore (1969). Authoritative short study by a Dore-born historian, published as a follow-up to the unveiling of the Dore Stone." Moonraker2 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, the stone is not a reliable source. Judging from the site Moonraker2 links to, it is only 40 years old; it probably wasn't written by historians who had the text peer reviewed. Even if it were reliable it doesn't say there was a battle at Dore, only that Egbert led his army there. The only primary sources I know of that mention this are the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Roger of Wendover; neither says there was a battle there. The ASC says there was a submission at Dore, which at least one historian comments was probably a meeting of equals; Roger says the province was laid waste, but does not mention Dore -- in fact his wording does not imply a localized battle, but rather a pillaging campaign. The reason for the deletion is not that nothing happened at Dore, but that there are no reliable sources that specifically describe a battle there. What happened there deserves to be covered in Wikipedia -- and indeed it is covered: in Egbert of Wessex. An article on "Submission to Egbert at Dore" would be a better shot, since there are secondary sources that describe that, but it would end up being merged to Egbert's article because it doesn't have enough content to stand alone. Mike Christie (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence whatsoever that there was a battle; and we can't have articles on events on the basis that they haven't been disproven. For all that the meeting was important it's difficult to see, what with the scarcity of sources, how an article on it could stand on its own. Declan Clam (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A treaty at a site does not make the site a battleground. A battle would seem to require evidence of armed combat, and the sources do not support that. The sealing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede similarly does not support an article on the "Battle of Runnymede." (Where did the name of the old game "Battledore" come from? Surely not some legendary "Battle of Dore?" Edison (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The OED doesn't suggest an origin for 'battledore', but the first instance it gives is "batyldoure, or wasshynge betylle", from c. 1440. Chambers's Etymological Dictionary says "perhaps Sp. batidor, a beater, a washing beetle". Moonraker2 (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of a battle and Egbert's domination is mentioned in his article. At the very least this article only adds confusion.--SabreBD (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a better account at Dore (to which the battle article strangely doesn't even link), which quotes from Anglo Saxon Chronicle: "Egbert led an army against the Northumbrians as far as Dore, where they met him, and offered terms of obedience and subjection, on the acceptance of which they returned home". No battle. PamD (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Dore - There is no firm evidence for there being such a battle and the events are covered at Dore. Without verifiable sources this would violate our NPOV policy. Rje (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fereidoun Ghasemzadeh[edit]

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

This assistant professor has an h-index in the single digits. His other claim to notability, being the CEO of Afranet, might be enough, but not in my opinion. I'll be nominating the company article too, since its claim to notability seems rather weak to me. Both articles were written by the same user, doubtlessly someone with a COI. Abductive (reasoning) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a full professor, no major awards, no evidence of books edited or written, not a department chair, etc., thus fails WP:PROF. As stated elsewhere, h-index does little for me. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is "seems" to Abductive isn't in the list of reasons for deletion, neither is COI (please feel free to read about COI and deletion, Abductive), until a reason for deletion is given, CEO of Afranet fine, keep. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a puff-page. Article makes much out of his publications ("has published more than 10 academic papers", "has about 100 articles in the media and has held dozens of conferences and seminars", etc.) and then even goes on to list the numbers of claimed citations for these. Yet, WoS shows 5 articles, only 2 of which he's lead author on, for an over h-index of only 2. This asst professor's article falls squarely into the "too soon" bin. I also can't see how merely being the head of an ISP in Iran confers notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, searches confirm that there is nothing here close to WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brand Tire Company[edit]

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

Non-notable local company lacking GHits of substance and with no GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to locate any documents which would establish the notability of this company. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage online, article is similar to other creations by Special:Contributions/BusinessBios. MuffledThud (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, unsourced. Hairhorn (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is notable in So. Cal. but without a lot of fanfare about themselves in the press and deserves to stay. I will add additional sources to their citations. It's a bitty, non-advertorial article about who they are and what they do. They get a lot of searches and should stay present here. Still working on getting better MuffledThud :-)BusinessBios ~~BusinessBios~~ —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2009 (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 all four. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for the Constructive Review of Public Policy[edit]

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

Not WP:Verifiable if not an outright WP:HOAX. At the very least, not notable. No hits on any Google channel that aren't self-placed or a cover page with nothing behind it. See a page of the Boston University School of Theology where an attempt to place an article was rejected on the grounds of non-verifiability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages by the same author for similar reasons:

Regarding the last item, I find no evidence of magazines named ProxyWeek or Control Panel Jockey. Also, the German date style (27. November) used in the name of this purported American club isn't used in the United States—but it's the style that the author uses in all four articles. (Another editor changed it to US style in the CCRPP article.) This may be evidence of a hoax. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also its website is empty as are ccrpp.org and ccrpp.com. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citizens for the Constructive Review of Public Policy. It's a one sentence sub-stub with almost no content and it's unsourced. I haven't reviewed the other articles. I have no opinion on them. Royal broil 02:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can see a longer version in here when it was rejected at AfC exactly two years ago. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bizarre—the Boston University page I mentioned was a copy of that. It's weird what kind of Wikipedia mirrors there are out there. It's like, why is there a Wikipedia mirror on a website called Absolute Astronomy? —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all four as hoaxes. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Not a single Nexis result for any of the terms except Coalition 98, which produces 48 unrelated mentions. Even if this web of organisations exists (I'm not convinced), they seem to be unverifiable and non-notable. --Kateshortforbob _talk 15:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Collins (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Delete Unnecessary page per MOS:DAB; already a hatnote on primary to only other entry Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need for this page, and not a likely redirect. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:54, 3 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Boleyn (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Delete, unnecessary page per MOS:DAB. Already a hatnote on clear primary to only other entry. I mistakenly created this page when I unbderstood less about disambiguation pages, and I think I also created the article for George Boleyn, dean of Lichfield, who only just meets the notability guidelines - certainly the queen's brother is by far the primary. Boleyn (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Use a hat instead. Why is this for AFD? It's not an article but a disambiguation. SunCreator (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it was de-prodded, reason given: 'two blue links'. There's debate about where to take dabs past that point, but AfD is often used. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediator (short film)[edit]

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

Contested Prod of a Non-Notable movie. Ridernyc (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No sources, nothing on Google Search/News that can be considered reliable, nothing on IMDb. Fails WP:FILMNOT. Favonian (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this WP:FILM. Joe Chill (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep The Tossers, what would Wikipedia do without them. (NAC) RMHED (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tossers[edit]

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

fails WP:BAND Dlabtot (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tours confer notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What tours? Where are the reliable sources that describe these tours? WP:BAND says: Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Where can we read this non-trivial coverage? Dlabtot (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blows past WP:MUSIC with releases on Thick Records and Victory Records. These guys are second-tier to Dropkick Murphys and Flogging Molly; they've been around for so long that I never expected anyone would think to bring them here. Chubbles (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if they are as notable as you say there must exist some reliable sources to verify that. see WP:BURDEN. Dlabtot (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. If you think the article lacks citations, ((sofixit)). An encyclopedia without an article on this band isn't an encyclopedia I'd want to contribute to. Chubbles (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for citations, and didn't find any that were independent of the subject. I tried to fix it but I dont think it is fixable therefore I nominated it for deletion. You don't seem to have read WP:BURDEN as I suggested. You certainly have the choice to not contribute to Wikipedia instead of simply adding the sources to the article that you claim exist. Since you seem to be a fan of this band, I'd respectfully submit that you are a better candidate to WP:SOFIXIT than I - since I already tried. Dlabtot (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Dlabtot wants independent citations perhaps Dlabtot should try looking at The Tossers album articles. [6] [7] [8] [9] etc. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic.com is a service that lists ALL MUSIC, not just notable music. It is not a reliable source for establishing notability. See prior discussions on this topic: [10], [11], [12] Dlabtot (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well...no. Allmusic attempts to catalog ALL MUSIC, and so has simple, machine-fed discographical information for anything sent to it. However, it only writes biographies and reviews for artists, albums, and songs it considers worthy of remark, and has published several books of such material. It is one reliable source which may be brought to bear to hurdle the WP:GNG along with other sources, but often serves as a single reliable source to verify that an artist passes one or more criteria of WP:MUSIC (which it does). I've not lifted a finger here because I believe this case to be so self-evident that it should not merit the adding of a raft of needless citations, and I am banking that the community at large could not possibly be so blind as to miss this. I don't actually much like this band at all, but I certainly recognize the value of the page. Chubbles (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't base Wikipedia articles on what editors consider to be "self-evident", we base them on citations to reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those prior discussions do not back up your claim that Allmusic is not a reliable source. Duffbeerforme (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I made no such claim, what I said was that it's not a reliable source for establishing notability, argued by myself and others in those discussions. Your willful mischaracterization of my comments and those discussions is discouraging. Dlabtot (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to suggest that Allmusic is a reliable source but is not a reliable source for establishing notability? (ps your lack of good faith is discouraging) Duffbeerforme (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debates has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles – easily meets our notability guidelines. Plenty of coverage can be found:
- Harris, Michael C. (March 10, 2004). "Feeling lucky, punk?", Chicago Tribune, p. 34.
- Downing, Andy (October 7, 2005). "Tossers get their Irish up preserving city culture in song", Chicago Tribune, p. 22.
- Pizek, Jeff (December 30, 2005). "The Tossers keep Irish groove, stay true to heavier side", Daily Herald, p. 8.
- Sauer, Rachel (March 6, 2006). "Tony of The Tossers Speaks Volumes", Palm Beach Post, p. D1.
- McGuire, Matt (May 11, 2008). "Shamrock shuffle", Chicago Tribune, p. 41.
  - ... and so on... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you apparently have access to these sources, it would be very helpful if you'd incorporate them into the article, rather than just list them here. Dlabtot (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Chubbles and Paul Erik. Meets category 1 of WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2009 (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 Moved to userpace. A bit of IAR. Since the article creator is a new user + the article was clearly not ready for mainspace, I have moved it to his [[userspace after discussion with him. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale voip business[edit]

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

delete, spam article. Nothing supports inclusion or even attempts to explain how it's notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2009 (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 redirect and salt. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mortgage Basics[edit]

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

All the information found here can also be found in the much better article mortgage Tresiden (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed. Rubbishy article created by a spammer. andy (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to the mortgage article, which better covers the same material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tried redirecting but the author reverted. andy (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very reason I brought it here. :) Tresiden (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect and salt. From the reference to Peru and the quality of the language, I suspect this is a babelfish translation of a copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:33, 29 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Search By Price[edit]

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

Non-notable browser add-on, recently released and described as "experimental". Fails WP:N. andy (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this Firefox add-on. Joe Chill (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The website is clearly notable, and a feature like this is probably in heavy use, but I cannot see that there is much to write about it, or that any readers would care. Searching by price is a common feature on shopping and advert websites, and there is nothing to indicate that Amazon is unique in that regard. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:02, 30 October 2009 (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 Nominator withdraws, no delete !votes, bad nomination Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indecision (band)[edit]

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

No real notability shown. sourcing suggests aritcle is claiming notability based in large part on the death of tens of thousands of unrelated people. Every other source is primary. Such disgusting claim to notability is ... Other possible claim to notability is Justin Brannan. His notability depends on being a member of this band and of Most Precious Blood. The notability of both rely on his notability which is based on the notability of his bands. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating Brannan's own page and his other bands page:[reply]

Keep all. Most Precious Blood (band) rather spectacularly passes WP:MUSIC, with three releases on Trustkill Records and plenty of third-party coverage (Here's their AMG profile, for starters). Indecision also has an AMG profile and several album reviews, got a review in Maximum Rocknroll, was a top 5 metal act in CMJ in 2000, and so forth... Brannan might normally be a target for redirection to Most Precious Blood, but as the member of two notable bands, there is no single redirect target and so it's reasonable for him to have an article of his own. Chubbles (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Disgust and spam missed before. Bad nom. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator NW (Talk) 23:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsuhan Chan[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP that doesn't clarify why the subject would meet WP:ACADEMIC. As an aside, the article was created by a WP:SOCK of a banned user. Gazi moff 16:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per criterion G5 (created by banned user with little substantive input by anyone else). Even if that didn't apply, I still don't see how this meets the notability guideline for academics, and any unsourced BLP is always a bad thing to have around. *** Crotalus *** 19:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It now has some substantive edits from me, and several reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep as an IEEE fellow, one of the explicit criteria of WP:PROF, which was already confirmed by the faculty profile linked in the article before nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with the IEEE Fellow, he passes a different criterion of WP:PROF, #1, due to his six papers with over 100 citations each. He has also received some media attention for his research, which I added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also WP:PROF #8 as eic of IEEE Trans. Multimedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is hard to understand the reasons to delete this page as presently edited. Would the nominator of the AfD care to expand on his reasons in case something has been missed. Has the nominator studied WP:Before? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The nominator has studied WP:BEFORE. The nominator also understands that the subject's surname was incorrectly spelt, and is actually Chen, which is why the nominator found no sources. The nominator will be withdrawing the AfD now that this is corrected and well sourced, but the nominator also doesn't apprectaite smart-ass comments. Many thanks, Gazi moff 23:25, 31 October 2009 (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. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boy (2009 film)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability User234 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per #2 of the film notability guide - The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival. Screened at at least 7 festivals, many of them having WP articles too. Lugnuts (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - I've now sourced most of them too. Google is your friend. Lugnuts (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't add part of the criteria: "at least five years after initial release.". Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The full text is The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. - I read that as the commerical re-release after 5 years OR screened in a festival. Find me one film that was screened at a festival and then screened again at another festival 5 years later. Lugnuts (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't twist that sentence around; its very clear: A) film is given a commercial re-release, OR B) screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. User234 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've read it wrong, otherwise no-one could create an article for a 2009 film until 2014. Lugnuts (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is if you base notability only on No. 2. What if notability is established outright by No. 1 or No. 3? You can write an article for a 2009 article right here, right now if that's the case. Problem is, you focus only on No. 2, trying to justify the existence of this Boy article on that sole line (and twisting it at that) for your benefit. User234 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly twisting it. The policy asks for one of the points, not x AND y. Your original comment of "no evidence of notability" just simply isn't true, as I've already proven. There's also the blurb on the film notability page that reads "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is covered in the number of refs I've added around screening and censorship.Lugnuts (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is so strange we become so touchy about a film whose subject matter doesn't suit our agenda or values, so we stick deletion notes to them. If the film "Boy" has been screened at Outfest Los Angles Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, Jeonju International Film Festival in South Korea (Asian premiere), Toronto ImagineNative Film & Media Arts Festival in Toronto (Canadian premiere), Image+Nation Montreal, Frameline Film Festival (San Francisco International Lesbian and Gay Film Festival), Seattle International Film Festival and was banned in Singapore because of its subject matter and is creating hell with a host of countries and is praised in others worthy of seeing by all means and is having a highly expected commercial release in Philippines for a very noteworthy director, how can we nominate this as an insignificant film? Just to avoid a deletion request, we had also, in addition to lengthy number of festivals shown, also included 8 independent media sources links / references / sources that all talk about the film. There are interviews with the director, discussion of the issues it brings to the viewer... Just read this one single review: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/166505/Filipino-film-Boy-captures-hearts-in-San-Francisco There are tens of films added every day. What I feel is Filipino and gay put together didn't suit your agenda and you got fixated on deleting to any link to this worthwhile film on Wikipedia. By the way I saw the movie here in Montreal and I strongly suggest you see it yourself before passing value judgement. It took hours of research to prepare the page with participations in festivals and independent references just to prove its singnificance. In fact the above discussion I just read proves clearly how narrowly you see things. How about others having their say in this instead of you turning it into a tit-for-tat discussion issue. werldwayd (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable via more than adequate coverage.--Michig (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are already a good number of English language sources. Presumably there are many many more Filippino sources - this should have been discussed with the Philippines and Singaporean projects to ask for help with foriegn language sourcing before even thinking of deletion.Yob Mod 17:36, 31 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buckhaven town afc[edit]

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

Delete, non notable small sport conference Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, though from a fairly large city, is does not meet specific notability guidelines listed under WikiProject Football. By their definition, if not in the standard level 1-15 standard a team must be the highest level of national grouping. An amateur soccer league in one city is far below that standard. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic comment - The league's in Fife, which is a county in Scotland, not a city. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To confer notability, a Scottish team would have to play in at least the Third Division or the Scottish Cup. They've done neither. (Incidentally, the division they play in isn't notable enough for its own article.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thank you for the specifics on which do count. My logic was that, since it's just a city there's no way it could be a league of sufficient level to count as "national". Since there's no official 1-15 marked for it it's kind of a guess job. ...And yes, I figured the team wasn't notable because their division wasn't. The collection of junk in the football catacombs is massive and I'll be glad to have 1 less thing. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very non-notable club. Note that hailing "from a fairly large city" has no bearing on a club's notability - there are literally hundreds of football clubs in London or Manchester or Birmingham, most of which are completely non-notable. I live in Birmingham and a quick search on the FA's website suggests there are at least 30 men's football clubs just within 2 miles of my house....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable team. Giant Snowman 14:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable team Steve-Ho (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Non-admin closure. • Anakin ^(talk) 05:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Gardner[edit]

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

DELETE. While I am excited for Sue Gardner that she is the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, I am not seeing notability in terms of how Wikipedia defines it. The articles listed below, which do make mention of her by name, are primarily surrounding the issue of Jimmy Wales supposedly filing inappropriate expense reports, with only passing coverage on Gardner if any. JBsupreme (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without respect to which organization it is, the ED of an organization with major internet impact is notable . DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she was just nominated in the Huffington Post for Ultimate Media Game Changer. The ED of the Wikimedia foundation, that runs the 8th most visited website in the world, is clearly notable. Majorly talk 02:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't be ridiculous. Clearly meets the sourcing requirements of WP:BIO. Steven Walling 02:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. The article may have been well sourced before, but it was tiny and uninformative. JBsupreme is right, a number of the 'references' had almost no information about Gardner. I added a few paragraphs and better sources, but it still needs work. +sj + 08:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The current references aren't great - we have her own LinkedIn profile and agency profile, two WMF press releases and a blog, none of which really count towards notability. The two remaining references are something, but not much. I can believe that the sources are out there, but we don't have them yet. --Tango (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. In charge of the organization that runs the sixth most visited site on the internet. If this were any other organization as significant as Wikipedia it would be absolutely ludicrous to propose deleting its top executive. Common sense is allowed. --JayHenry (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I may not have edited in a very long time, while I disagree with some of her decisions, and while I often support a stricter approach to what is defined as encyclopedic, this is ridiculous. Would anyone even consider deleting Eric Schmidt or Carol Bartz? Danny (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her nomination by the Huffington Post "as one of ten 'media game changers of the year' for the impact on new media of her work for Wikimedia" would, alone, satisfy any notability concerns. A search for "Sue Gardner" wikimedia raises 11,000 hits. Let's move on. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get a life keep. Lampman (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep clearly.--Milowent (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DrawPile[edit]

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

Unremarkable software product, no third party citations to establish notability. Bonewah (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BURDEN, claims need to be backed up by the author. This appears to be Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill software. Miami33139 (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Goloubef[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally. Fails to meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This level of player has been routinely deleted in the past. DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE and the notability standards of the hockey WikiProject; not particularly distinguished college player. Ravenswing 16:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, based on article. Comment I was curious. There are 38,900 hits on Google for this guy. Has his own fan club on Facebook even. And whoever put the article on Wikipedia can't write more than a stub. Alaney2k (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Patken4 (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATH as he hasn't played at the highest professional level.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:29, 2 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show=Tarou Harada[edit]

Article ([[Special:EditPage/(({1))}|edit]] | [[Talk:(({1))}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/(({1))}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/(({1))}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/(({1))}|delete]] | [((fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/(({1))}|limit=999)) links] | [((fullurl:(({1))}|action=watch)) watch] | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Procedural nom. Original prod stated "As his only work, Na Na Na Na for which he is even remotaly known fails WP:BK, i believe he fails WP:BIO." Prod removed by IP with note of "Clearly states in 1st line that that isn't his only work." However, Harada clearly fails fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:N. Of his two works, one is only marginally notable in that it has an anime adaptation, though no actual significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is known for other things as well. Na Na Na Na and D4 Princess are the only things he has listed in his article, both of them appearing quite notable, but his website list dozens of other things he has done as well. Anyone look into that yet? Dream Focus 21:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove he is notable by showing coverage in reliable, third-party sources, not what he himself says about himself? And considering you discounted his saying his name is Show=Tarou Harada (published name), versus Shotaro Harada (what ANN listed),[13] it would seem you are being selective in deciding what he can be considered reliable about. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of his series was populate enough to be made into an anime. He is a notable enough manga writer. Dream Focus 01:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, prove it. One manga getting an anime series does not make the manga's author notable per Wikipedia guidelines, which are still what we follow here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline is just a suggestion, you suppose to think for yourself. Common sense says if the writer produced a manga that sold well enough to make an anime, which survived for multiple seasons, they must be notable, since their work was clearly notable. Policies must be accepted, not the suggested guidelines. WP:IAR has an interesting statement in it from Jimmy Wales himself, about how Ignore All Rules has always been part of Wikipedia, and a key factor to remain. Wikipedia is about consensus and common sense, not rules. Think for yourself, and stop quoting guidelines. Dream Focus 10:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules does not mean that you can ignore policies or guidelines simply because you don't like or agree with them. Perhaps you should go back and reread WP:IAR, especially this line: "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. —Farix (t | c) 12:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not every action is justified, but you can't make your decisions entirely based on the ever changing guidelines. It says Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Dream Focus 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Collectonian and WP:DIRECTORY under Genealogical entries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original prod. While D4 Princess might be notable, the other is not and just having 1 series be made into an anime doesn't make it likely you'll have more info on the author unless they are extremely popular which isn't the case here.陣内 _Jinnai 19:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A1 - article with no context at all. Hipocrite (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does identify its subject, so it doesn't qualify for WP:CSD#A1. —Farix (t | c) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response No, it dosen't. There's dispute over the name of the person identified by the article. Hipocrite (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is questioning who this person is, just the best way to write his name. Everyone involved knows that they are talking about the creator of the manga Na Na Na Na and D4 Princess. Calathan (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable enough.--Staberinde (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Na Na Na Na[edit]

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

Deprodded by IP with not of "item has been licensed", but this does not confer notability. Original prod had reason of "item has been listed as unnotable for almsot a year. It still fails to pass WP:BK. The author himself ilso unnotable and it is unlikely that the series ever will be notable." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have dealt with the link rot on this article. -- allen四names 08:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you added archive links to dead sites which have been removed as not being in keeping with WP:EL which are only for live active official sites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely trivial mention by ANN fails WP:NOTE. Only one review found at Mania.com were they panned the first volume so hard that they didn't bother to do a followup review for the second volume. —Farix (t | c) 11:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with TheFarix. After reading the review that TheFarix linked here I no longer see any point in keeping this article. -- allen四names 16:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added in a reception section. Notice the glowing review a reliable source gave it? Googling its name in English or Japanese shows a massive number of results, so surely more references could be found. Dream Focus 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a publisher provided summary from the back of the book. Also Anime News Network's encyclopedia is user edited and is neither reliable or an indicator of notability as it is a directory. And how many times do we have to tell that the number of Google hit is irrelevant? —Farix (t | c) 22:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original prod.陣内 _Jinnai 19:12, 1 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mink (manga)[edit]

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Only one extremely brief review on Manga-News which may not even be a review[14] Prod removed by IP with not of "has been licensed", however being licensed does not give instant notability to any manga series. Despite its being licensed and fully released in English and French, again no significant coverage has been found, just the single 2-3 sentence "review" already noted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an old manga series so I understand why alot wouldnt be online about it and as much as the Otaku in me wants to keep the article it does not meet notability (If it has been around this long and people forgot it that fast it isnt notable in my point of view). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would prefer to keep this article but I have to agree with the nominator about it's notability. -- allen四names 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in French or so, i checked 5 French RS websites. The manga-news review is an user submitted one not a staff one, to answer Collectonian. English coverage isn't better i found nothing RS. --KrebMarkt 07:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of obvious online review sources in English is not a valid reason to delete. The massive number of hits Google gets, prove it is at least well known. Anime News Network list it. Dream Focus 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anime News Network's Encyclopedia is a user edited directory. So it is neither reliable or an indicator of notability as it is a directory. And how many times do we have to tell that the number of Google hit is irrelevant? —Farix (t | c) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing you can use google for is first making sure none of the links are wikipedia related links, then use what you can find as possible references. Total amount of hits mean nothing because some of them could reference wikipedia, while others are possible fansites. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a close argument, somewhere near the border of delete and no consensus. I am swayed to the delete arguments that despite the multiple sources, the totality of coverage is not sufficient to show notability. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Joseph Cormier 3rd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Totally NN individual. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- looking at the references, it seems there are quite a few articles giving him extensive coverage (I'm drawing that implication from looking at the titles). I can see coming to the conclusion that he seems unimportant from what the text of the article here says, but that's not how we usually approach the question of notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I should have looked more closely at the talk page first -- my apologies... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming you are asking editors to look closely at the BLP talk in depth before coming to a conclusion concerning this nomination for deletion. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be noted! Hipocrite, who initiated this 3rd attempt at Deletion, initiated the process in March of this year and in February. I have to question his NPOV? There was no consensus the last time, and KEEP before that. Since the numerous references are pre-internet, unless an Editor has access to a pay newspaper archive site, they cannot be found easily. The subject, me, has offered to e-mail all the references listed and more, to any editor willing to take a look at them and try to improve the article.

Looking at an old version of this article, and it has undergone many changes, [15] while all the detailed information in it contained cannot be used because of Wikipedia policy on verifiable newspaper references, all the information is 100% factual in the biography of this living person. Steve Smith, Wikipedia´s resident expert in BLP´s, stated he would be working on improving it more this week. Perhaps Hipocrite just wants to jump the gun before it is made better? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response DoDaCanaDa's statement is not accurate. I nominated this article for deletion once before, on the same grounds. It was kept because improvements were promised. Improvement did not happen, and, if promised here, should be taken with an 8 month grain of salt. There is, additionally, a further level of care with respect of biographies of totally-NN people who have had passing mentions for winning jam contests now than there was in February, regardless of their desire for a self-aggrandizing "biography." Hipocrite (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am misreading the initial comment in the first attempt at deletion, it was started by Hipocrite. The record is the record. If I am mistaken on this, my sincere apology. DoDaCanaDa (talk)

Weak keep, as with my vote in the last nomination. There's coverage here from a variety of reliable sources. If the subject wanted deletion, I'd delete, but here the subject clearly doesn't. Steve Smith (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The opinion of the subject here is moot; there is a sizable number of reliable sources. Many of them are 30 years old, and appear to be print-only, but they still exist. The article itself has improved some since the last time it has been nominated, but overall it has been a terrible WP:COI-magnet for its own subject, and still suffers from a lack of outside attention from people who are uninvolved with the subject. That, however, is a cleanup issue, there is nothing with the tone of the article that cannot be cleaned up. The sources exist, so the subject is likely notable. In the interest of full disclosure, I was invited here by DoDaCanaDa. --Jayron32 16:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When you say "invited," what you mean is "canvassed against policy due to your prior keep vote," correct? Should your !vote be disregarded, in your opinion, or are you going to warn Mr. Cormier to stop violating WP:CANVASS (again) and neutral messages out to a diverse pool of editors who may be interested in this AFD? Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On which: I have posted here to the COI noticeboard about rampant canvassing and ceaseless COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

will someone please explain to me the difference for contacting those editors who previously took an interest in this article and this official tag bot sent to another editor here User_talk:J_Milburn#AfD_nomination_of_Ray_Joseph_Cormier When the Afd tag appeared yesterday, according to Wikipedia traffic statistics, 53 Wikipedians looked at the article,up from only 1 or 2 viewers a day, and only Nomoskedasticity left a comment. All I asked from those Editors I contacted in a permissible ¨friendly notice¨ was to ¨take a look¨ In the interest of balance, and not to be in violation of canvassing, I will inform the same number of editors who registered a delete in the previous Afd. I assure everyone this will be my last comment on this Adf until a consensus is reached.DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will not register an opinion here, as I informed DoDaCanaDa on my talk page, due to possible canvassing. --Danger (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of news stories about him from back in the day. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you the same as notified here? --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. There *is* coverage but it's very minor coverage over a long period and doesn't add up to an awful lot. You could construct an article for anyone on that basis - hell, I could have an article on that basis. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am going by these policies for my iVote to delete They are WP:N though as stated below notability has to be shown in reliable sources as a news article not in human interest stories, WP:ANYBIO, WP:VANITY & also if neede WP:IAR. To me this article is not notable nor does it meet policies/guidelines. I am i'Voting also per comments made by Cameron Scott, User:Atama, User:Johnuniq The main users that had the most to offer me during this is User:DoDaCanaDa and User:Steve Smith Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The number of references to reliable sources almost caused me to make a kneejerk "keep" argument. Normally I would say that they would clinch this as an establishment of notability. But I looked into the long discussion on the talk page, and the last two AfDs. Particularly compelling was something that KillerChihuahua said in the first deletion discussion:

I think its borderline, and if the subject weren't causing such issues, I'd probably let it slide. Wikipedia is not paper. But self-declared prophet who did what, ran for office and lost? Uh, can we say Gastrich? Not notable, seriously. His sources are small newspapers from the seventies for the most part; we can look for someone local to the papers to go read the microfiche but I'm not seeing notability here, more like sourced Local Character. Good for them. My home town had a local character too, and I have not (and will not) write a WP article on him. If you take a look, the "news" seems to be mostly Caused a fuss at the local courthouse and got arrested for Disorderly Conduct kind of thing. This is NOT notability.

-- Atama頭 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I think Cormier fails WP:BIO. My reaction is the same as Atama's: the article itself -- the text, the claims made -- demonstrate lack of notability rather than the reverse. I'd go even further -- I think the text itself shows that it is preposterous to have an article on him, to the point that it is a discredit to Wikipedia. Even if we need to invoke IAR on this one, I think it should be deleted. And if it isn't already apparent: the only (weak) keep vote here that is coming from someone who wasn't canvassed is Steve Smith's. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was canvased but have the page watched so would have found it anyways. In any case, last time the sources were more than enough, and they haven't gotten worse over time. Meets WP:N by a fair margin. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out I'd taken it off my watchlist. Got a bit annoyed with the whole process I guess. Didn't realize. Put it back on. In any case, there are plenty of sources, many solely about him. That he has been covered by reliable sources about things people here think aren't notable doesn't matter. He meets the letter and spirit of WP:N. I'd like those arguing for deletion to cite a policy or guideline here, or state they are !voting based on IAR (which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, just not counted very heavily). Hobit (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've already mentioned IAR, but I'd like to emphasize that I genuinely think he fails WP:BIO: I do not think that he is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". The issue of sources is a common way of arriving at a conclusion as to whether someone is notable, but since notability is defined at the outset without reference to sources, I think it is possible for a subject to appear in sources and yet fail to be notable in the way the guideline defines the word. So I don't intend that my vote is to be taken solely on the basis of IAR. And I would be very grateful if other editors voting keep can consider this way of making judgments on sources and notability here: the "spirit" of notability is defined, and the existence of sources does not tell us everything we need to know. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - He both got plenty of attention and was obviously recorded by reliable sources. As I read that it's not if you or I think he deserved that attention and recording, it's that RSes felt that way. Otherwise, I'd !vote to delete everything we have that's related to soap operas. They are (in my opinion) not worthy of any attention (let alone existence, TV time, or advertising revenue). But there are plenty of sources, so we have articles and I don't try to delete them... Hobit (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are articles with non-trivial coverage about this topic in the Edmonton Journal, Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun, Kansas City Times and the Halifax Daily News. Meets WP:N by a mile. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's sufficient coverage from multiple reliable sources — and major sources, too; one newspaper in the capital of Canada, four newspapers in Canadian provincial and territorial capitals, and several more in major non-capital Canadian and US cities. It appears that our reliable sources think that he is "significant, interesting..." enough to cover him repeatedly, and how are we going to define notability if sustained coverage by multiple reliable sources isn't it? Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per Nomoskedasticity. Ironholds (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Atama and Nomoskedasticity. Frmatt (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the the general notability guideline with lots of media coverage. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is an activist, prophet, Christian, wears a football jersey, has failed to win an election, left the church and got a job, had visions of the end of the world, hitchhiker, arrested for sleeping in a park and later for disrupting the peace. Subject completely misses WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ANYBIO (no awards, no widely recognized contributions). Fails WP:CREATIVE (not an author), and fails WP:N/CA (not a notable criminal). The only way to save this article is to show that the subject meets the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". However, the subject does not satisfy that criterion because being mentioned in human-interest stories is not an indication of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain how human-interest stories don't meet the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"? One could argue (and I would actually) that sports stories or entertainment stories, or all sorts of "not really news" stories are as valid (or invalid) as human interest stories. Hobit (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The world is full of interesting people. Wikipedia only has articles for those who are notable in an encyclopedic sense (not necessarily those popular in tabloid local papers that fill space with human interest stories). The article is keepable only if someone can locate an analysis in a secondary source that is focused on the subject (for example, an analysis on the effects of the activism, or a comparison of notable activists). Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we generally treat newspapers as secondary sources to the topics they cover. Asking for analysis is, as far as I know, a much higher bar than WP:N. Hobit (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although the sources are from papers in major cities, the stories themselves are only local stories. For example, there are no non-Kansas City sources about his Kansas City activities. There are no Toronto sources about his Ottawa activities. I'm not sure that qualifies him as notable. Kingturtle (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Ecuadorians[edit]

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

Prodded article, where tag was removed. The article covers people "that share common lineage involving Ecuador and Greece", without suggesting why such an ethnic group would be be notable. One could imagine a near-infinite number of X-Y-ians, so there should probably be a reason for this article if we are to keep it. This particular grouping would appear to be non-notable (nothing to the contrary found via google), and the fact that "Ecuador contains a tiny community of Greek-Ecuadorians" is already mentioned in Demographics of Ecuador. Bfigura ^(talk) 13:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The scant information is already cited in the Demographics of Ecuador article. Warrah (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grecuadorians don't seem to be a very large group. According to the source in Greek diaspora, there are twenty (I find that hard to believe). No evidence of a sizeable or notable community. Mandsford (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is almost devoid of information, and substantially all the Google hits for this term are for Wikipedia or mirror sites. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Klein (businessman)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Originally translated from the Portugese Wikipedia article that is also unsourced. Gazi moff 13:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep, clearly notable in Brazil. Citations added; more would be welcome. I appreciate the effort going into cleaning up BLPs, but we need a better method than listing them on AfD. I've seen a number of clearly notable articles listed here -- especially on topics that are more famous outside of the English-language web. In many places we're countering systemic bias as coverage improves, but not [yet] on AfD. +sj + 20:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty more sources available amongst these books and these scholarly papers. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable, founder of the largest retail chain in Brazil and a pioneer of 'low-end' retailing in the developing world. There is a biography of him in Portuguese, Samuel Klein e Casas Bahia : uma trajetória de sucesso, which went to a 2nd edition. I also added a couple of English-lang sources to the article, including a front-page Wall Street Journal profile. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:35, 3 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Gudenus[edit]

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

Thinly sourced BLP that currently fails criteria for inclusion under WP:BLP1E Gazi moff 13:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a former member of the Federal Council of Austria he would seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN. --Chris Johnson (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:POLITICIAN. Joe Chill (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they are a politician, it needs sourcing accurately sourcing per WP:V. Additionally, exceptional claims (holocaust denial) require exceptional sources i.e. more than one. Many thanks, Gazi moff 22:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source in the article verifies it. He's not a politician. He is a former politician, but he still pases the WP:POLITICIAN criteria: "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." (Which Chris Johnson already brought up). There are plenty more sources in this Google News search that verifies it also. Here is another source that verifies holocaust denial. Joe Chill (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they are valid sources, they need to be added to the article and not just listed here. Many thanks, Gazi moff 17:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Google News search verifies the holocaust denial with lots of sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I think he's marginally notable, per WP:POLITICIAN but this article will always suffer from WP:UNDUE issues and I don't think we'll ever be in a position to balance it out. Rght now, it seems to only exist to say 'zOMG holocaust denier!!' and little else - Alison ^❤ 22:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN. There's no undue weight issue if the sourcing happens to focus on issues with him surrounding holocaust denial. By definition, something is undue weight if the weight doesn't reflect the weight of sourcing available. That's not an issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to point out that while the English language sources almost exclusively focus on the Holocaust denial issue, I'm sure the German sources provide a more complete picture of his political career. He was the equivalent of a senator; there have to be articles about his campaign and early days in office. I'm just not linguistically competent to find them. --Chris Johnson (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, then that's an editorial issue not an issue for AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. —Chris Johnson (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a member of a national parliament. This is not even remotely borderline. Other factors about his career are irrelevant here. We have considerable experience in editing even difficult articles. The principle that a member of parliament is notable is so well established that I am cannot follow the logic of the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Politician isn't at stake here - I agree that if it's a sourced fact then it's completely valid. But having a controversial BLP reliant on a single source that itself is part of a European roundup just isn't right. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I there are other sources out there, they need to be added. Many thanks, Gazi moff 17:56, 31 October 2009 (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 Jayron32 05:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad-Reza Zarrindast[edit]

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

Currently fails WP:V and WP:N. However, my google-fu has been weak with this one and I'm happy to consider withdrawing if WP:PROF can be demonstrated through adequate sourcing. Many thanks, Gazi moff 12:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Gazi moff 12:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Keep'~~ Weak Keep -- see below -- As even the GScholar link shows , very extensive publication record in major international journals, with good citations. Meets WP:PROF. ` DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, these need to be pulled out and the key ones identified. If they're relevant, they should be added to the article. Just coming here with a GScholar link doesn't really help. Many thanks, Gazi moff 17:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES doesn't apply to the way academic citations get discussed in relation to WP:PROF. If his work is widely cited, he's notable by PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm getting an h-index of 26. However, he cites himself more than average. His work looks descriptive to me. Can the nominator explain why the google-fu was weak? Abductive (reasoning) 09:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WoS shows > 250 entries with h-index of 25. He may self-cite to some degree (I have not checked), but these two numbers indicate he does not self-cite in most of his papers, otherwise his h-index would be much higher. (For example, if he cited every previous paper in every new one, his h-index would be about 250/2 = 125.) Clear pass on WP:PROF #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I redid the search in Scopus, which is much more exact for this sort of purpose than GS. It should give the same result as WoS, and it does: 269 papers, highest citations 43, 37 ,35, 34. pharmacology is a field where people publish a great many papers, so the count is not quite as spectacular as it would be in other subjects, but it remains very good. Unfortunately, there is a good deal of self citation, for his highest ranking paper,((1996) European Journal of Pharmacology, 298 (1), pp. 1-6.) about half the citations are to other papers of his, Following that: second highest, 1/2; third, 1/20; 4th, 2/3; 5th 1/20 -- so there is a good deal of variation. I accordingly changed to Weak Keep, above, because this is considerably more extensive than one ordinarily finds. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can these references be added to the article to ensure that the claims are accurately sourced (in particular "Zarrindast is among top most productive Iranian researchers"). If thet happens, I'm happy to consider withdrawing the nom and closing the AfD. Many thanks, Gazi moff 21:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand the article and modify as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2009 (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, unambiguous copyright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo massage[edit]

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

Article is apparently a copyvio based on an exact Google search of the first four paragraphs[16] but the said paragraphs (or any content on the article) does not appear on the website www.massagekits.com.au (first Google result and indicated link on the article); probably deleted on the site's page since another topic in similar format appears at the bottom of that site, but was found on a cached version[17] of that page as of Oct. 20 '09. E Wing (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, criterion G12 (tagged) - content appears identical to this cached version of one of the pages linked above. A copyright notice is given. Guest9999 (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global product[edit]

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

This article, as it stands, IMO contains nothing that merits a separate article. The author has, without explanation, removed a PROD as well as a redirect to Global marketing#Product. Personally, I would prefer the redirect, but failing that I propose deletion. Favonian (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is someone's homework. Whether it's a class project will depend on whether we start seeing more "global product" articles being turned in before Friday's class. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as proposed. Complete bollocks: A global product is a product that can be useful all over the world. It is recognizable as a solution for a generic equivalent problem which is not dependent of any localized parameters. A global product must be explained by only showing a picture. For example a paperclip. A global product need Global Marketing for international trade and development.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps merge the littel additional content to the Product section of Global Marketing. If there ends up enough content in that section for a separate page, then split it out. Nicolai (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed in nom. As Mandsford said, probably somebody's homework. Much of it is also complete bollocks. I don't see much worth merging for, but if there is, might as well be partially merged, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed and strongly oppose any merge as none of this material is sourced or even remotely plausibly accurate -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web visions[edit]

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

There have been a few attempts to csd this, and a failed attempt to afd it. I can not find sources for this. The novinite.com article is obviously a press release, and the company website is now a parked domain. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable Internet Explorer variant, referenced to press releases if at all. Google News ain't going to help you with a name like that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability + no sources = no article. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 18:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article/ no article- useless not notable. Softwaregeekland77777 (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ulleskelf Vikings[edit]

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

Tenth-tier football club from non-notable league, non-notable per WP:NSPORT and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability#Clubs, unreliable references per WP:RS, zero hits on Google News search, zero hits on ordinary Google search for "Ulleskelf Vikings". MuffledThud (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Up and coming football team soon to be featured in FourFourTwo magazine. No reason for deletion. User:ilfenomeno 11:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.19.67 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sunday league teams are pretty much inherently non-notable. Additionally, the league they play in is not at the tenth level of the English football league system, I can guarantee that they don't play in a 5,000-capacity stadium, and I can find no trace of a "Josh Rose" having played for any of the clubs mentioned, so it's not looking good for the believability of anything in the article. Oh, and "soon to be featured in FourFourTwo magazine", even if it's true, is unlikely to be enough to pass the GNG and is also blatant crystal ballery (I'm skeptical as to why the mag would even do an article on a newly-formed Sunday league team, but maybe I'll be proved wrong if said article ever does appear......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if this club ever rises high enough to be considered notable the article can be re-created, however at the moment there is no notablility at all. The league they are in is certainly not the tenth tier of the English league system and as ChrisTheDude has found no verifying information about the only former professional player everything about it looks dubious. The comment that the club is set to appear in FourFourTwo magazine does not mean that the club becomes notable. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — a purely local phenomenon, no way close to meeting the requirements for notability. Report back when the visions seen in the crystal ball come true. Favonian (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I may be overstepping the mark but I get the feeling that if this article does end up being deleted then it will just crop up again anyway. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, local low-level amateur team. Giant Snowman 12:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage to show notability. Much of current article looks like a hoax. Quantpole (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Chris says it all for me. (I also find it bizarre that FourFourTwo would do an article on a Sunday league team, considering they rarely cover anything in England below the Championship.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on above statement - I think the defender of this article is saying this more out of hope than any kind of fact, although I may be wrong. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in secondary sources Spiderone 19:55, 30 October 2009 (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 Iraq – United States relations. Some material may be suitable for Saddam Hussein as well. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein – United States relations[edit]

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

I propose to either delete this page or redirect to Iraq – United States relations. I tried to redirect, on the grounds that previously several editors have pointed out problems with the article and the article location and proposed to either merge or redirect to Iraq-United States relations. A merge tag was on the article for almost a year, with one editor promising on the talk page to move some of the information from this article to the Iraq-United States article. Nothing has really happened in almost a year, except that the same editor removed the merge tag a few weeks ago. There seems to be a rough consensus for a merge or redirect, if one takes into account that consensus is decided by better arguments, and not by a majority vote (several editors who opposed a merge did not explain their reasoning).

So much for the editing history of the article. The reasons why this article should be deleted or redirected are as follows: 1. There is already an article that deals with the joint history of the US and Iraq at Iraq – United States relations. Countries have relations, but not countries and individuals. We do not have and should not have articles on Margaret Thatcher-United States relations or Sese Mobutu-United States relations.

2. This article has some serious POV problems as is already clear from the first introductory sentence, which establishes as fact what is in reality controversial. Some sources are problematic (UPI is not a reliable source by any standards - and it is the only source for the claims that Hussein was backed by the CIA around 1960) and some sources are quoted selectively. Even more problematic is the ommission of viewpoints that are contrary. It is instructive to look at this source (convenience link to a Reuters article), where it is said that "But many experts, including foreign affairs scholars, say there is little to suggest U.S. involvement in Iraq in the 1960s." Little of that can be found in this article. It is telling that so many sources are of a shoddy quality, or are openly partisan, when it fact many academic books and articles have been written about US-Iraqi relations and Saddam Hussein. In the end there is little to nothing that should be kept as it is, making a merge not a good option. Pantherskin (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short summary: 1. Not a viable topic as the proper topic would be Iraq – United States relations, which already exists. 2. Merge is not an option due to the low quality of the article and POV and sourcing problems. Pantherskin (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - There is enough reliably sourced information on this article not present on the other. This information should first be transferred, not deleted completely, which is what the nominator repeatedly tried to do. Dynablaster (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere This is as true a violation of WP:NPOV as I've ever seen-- basically, a retelling of the events described in the Saddam Hussein article, but from America's point of view. No matter how neutral a tone the article is written in, every step of the way on the story of Saddam, the question "What did that mean to the United States?" is asked and answered. I'm reluctant to say delete on a copiously researched article, and someone has put a lot of work into this. On the other hand, I think much of it could be merged into Saddam Hussein in a shortened form. I would say the same for "Fidel Castro - USSR relations" or "Adolf Hitler - Great Britain relations" or "Saddam Hussein - Iran relations". All of history's stories could be retold from another point of view, but that doesn't mean that we should have another article from a different perspective. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a merge tag was on this article for almost a year, and nothing happened despite a promise by an interested party that material will be transfered. In any case most of the information is already in the Iraq – United States relations and the Saddam Hussein article, so nothing is lost apart from the more egregious violations of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Pantherskin (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No one wants to merge it apparently, and we cannot keep an article like this around forever. JBsupreme (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge or even Rename - there's a goodish bit of reliably sourced info here that it would be a shame to lose. Agree with the nom's first point "Countries have relations, but not countries and individuals", but if you were to regard "Saddam Hussein – United States relations" as a sort of shorthand for "relations between the US and Iraq during the period of Saddam's presidency" then it would be useful as a stand alone main article split off from the larger Iraq – United States relations (which admittedly isn't very large at the moment, but there's some potential for growth there I'd say). As Wikipedia grows I'd hope to see all bilateral relations articles split off like this, perhaps something along Library of Congress cataloguing lines. Declan Clam (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the first editor to suggest that Saddam Hussein – United States relations and Iraq – United States relations should be merged, but no editor has put efforts to merge the two articles (including myself, lazy me). And IMO, if no efforts are put to merge, then lets just keep the two articles separate. Imad marie (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iraq-United States relations. Some of the content also belongs in Saddam Hussain. WP:Preserve the referenced content. Edison (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be important if editors can point out which information is sourced and could potentially be merged. I am saying this because most of the information is not sourced, even if at first glance it looks like there is a proper reference. It starts with the first paragraph, which is sourced to an op-ed in the Guardian, but then the op-ed does not say anything about the role of Saddam Hussein in the assasination attempt on Quassim. Then we have several paragraphs sourced to United Press International, the media outlet of the Unification Church, a more than controversial sect. Even if the article used as a source is taken as reliable it is not properly cited - in the UPI article claims are attributed to their usually anonymous source, in the Wikipedia article claims by individuals are suddenly historical facts. It goes on. In the next day I will clean up the article and delete everything that is not properly source. We will then see what can be merged and what not. Pantherskin (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information regarding the pre- and post-Kuwait invasion is worthy of inclusion. It explains why Iraq-US relations were severed and at which time. All reliably sourced. Also, both UPI and The Washington Times are media outlets of News World Communications, owed by Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church. What is your objection exactly? Dynablaster (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPI is not a reliable source, certainly not a good source for the exceptional claims made in the article. This has already been pointed out by other editors in the past, but nothing has happened to back up the exceptional claims with reliable sources. Regarding the pre-and post Kuwait invasion, similar information can be found in the Saddam Hussein and Iraq – United States relations, and the corresponding sections there do not read like editorials and do not give more space to some individual authors and their claims than their fringe views would deserve. Little reason to merge it, except if someone would be willing to rewrite and amend the corresponding sections - but that is not exactly a merge. Last time I checked WP:RS and WP:NPOV were policies, and for good reasons anything that violates these policies should be rigorously deleted. Pantherskin (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Object to deletion. And support merge only if efforts are made not to delete the relevant sourced material in the article. Imad marie (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, an order to merge would give you, or any other interested editor, a reasonable opportunity to transfer relevant information to another article. In addition, if that's the outcome, it makes it less likely that an addition would be removed by a subsequent editor. Mandsford (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge with parent articles. This one has the potential to be a dumping ground for POV. WVBluefield (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In-flight aborts and rescue options[edit]

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

Article appears to be an essay comprised of original research. Has been tagged as unreferenced for two and a half years. G W… 10:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In an article of this nature, no excuse for not sourcing this. I can't find any evidence that this was copied from somewhere else, but it's odd to see an article start out with the words "In the context of the Orion spacecraft...". Not that the words are odd, but it resembles what one might find in the middle of a longer article about the Orion spacecraft. In any event, if you read this somewhere, you could at least tell us. Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no excuse to not provide sources for this. As stated above, it definitely reads like it was copied from somewhere, but for the life of me I can't figure out where from. In any event, it reads as original research. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:52, 30 October 2009 (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Andrews[edit]

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)).

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

Unnotable page of a self-published author whose personal website (also doubling as his "publisher" site) makes the case fairly clearly for his lack of notability. Much puffery, but not much notability. To wit:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. No
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. No
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. No
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. No

So the subject falls well below our notability threshhold. Eusebeus (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nomination details all the major points. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't have said it better myself. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 06:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kevin (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only thing I see [18] here are false positives. He lacked news coverage. Alexius08 (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding the constant relistings/reopenings. This AFD debate was first listed on October 17, and closed a few gours early as a "delete" on October 24. It was reopened following this DRV discussion. Yours truly mistakenly closed the AFD as a "delete" yesterday since I was unaware of the preceding DRV. Due to comments that indicate that some rework of the article may be forthcoming, I am now reopening, and putting it on the October 29 list so that the matter can be discussed for seven consecutive days, and that a final decision can be reached once in for all. I apologize for my role in prolonging the process on what ought to be a simple matter. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only references are either self-written by the author or the publisher, which is the same person. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Author and publisher are NOT "the same person" at all, and the obituary reference is from the Columbus Dispatch. Please check yourself for accuacy before making foolish statements. --cat Catherineyronwode (talk)

DO NOT DELETE - if you delete this article, then you will have to delete 100s of other similar articles and "lacked news coverage." Those wishing to delete are ill-informed as to the import of this author's contribution to the respect and appreciation of animals and all living beings. Surely that accounts for something on Wikipedia. If not, then we will have to assume that Wikipedia is restricted to only its owners' opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.53.49 (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC) — 71.180.53.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DO NOT DELETE - I wish to disagree with the original deletion comments. First point is that Mr Andrews' works are not all self-published; his better-known books have been released by a publishing company not associated directly with him (primarily Llewellyn). In regards to the first point raised:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Yes Ted Andrews is greatly respected within a number of areas, including the neo-Pagan and numerous New-Age communities, as an expert in plant and animal symbolism stemming from numerous cultures and the applicability to their use today. In particular, "Animal Speak" is regarded by many in the New Age community as a definitive work on animal totems. According to the publisher's website (http://www.llewellyn.com/product_publisher_reviews.php?ean=9780875420288), this book alone has sold over 400,000 copies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khohmann (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I did find several independent references to this person, all discussing his death [19],[20],[21],[22]; unfortunately, they're blogs, which aren't generally recommended as Wikipedia sources. Even so, combined with the high sales figures, I think there might be a case for notability here - it's pretty borderline, though. Robofish (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first blog is from About.com. Any individual can write a column on that website, so this does not establish notability. The last three links are from blogs that have no editorial oversight. These sources cannot be used to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One big red flag is that the article goes on and on explaining in great detail what are these awards that Andrews won, as if the author expected the reader to not know. This means that, at least in the mind of the author, these prizes are not that important. As impressive as the sales figures sound, alone they do not establish notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the Nom. Look, imma let this finish, but this has been opened now for 10 days, for 10 days. I fail to understand, Sjakkalle, why this AfD needs 15 days worth of discussion. Consensus seems clear enough. Eusebeus (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry that I contributed to the mess here. The reason I reopened was because of the previous DRV; closing just a few hours after DRV had reopened was contrary to what was decided there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See, by screwing this up (7 hours for Chrissake), now we have socks, SPAs, and other COIs as part of offwiki campaigning coming to very strongest possible keep their self-published new age guru. What a farce. This should have been closed as delete and some common sense exercised at the DRV. Eusebeus (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He was a well-known, multiple-title author. His books have tended to remain in print. I say this as a book dealer who does not carry his books in my own metaphysical bookshop, because i am not into his style of working, but, trust me, he was respected and his works are sought out in the New Age community. He also had a long-running column in New Age Retailer magazine. The article about him is very press-release like, but that is not the fault of Ted Andrews and should not reflect upon his notability. -- cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his books have remained in print, but this does not establish notability per WP:AUTHOR. Do you have secondary reliable sources that prove that he was "was respected and his works are sought out in the New Age community"? Cunard (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- His primary publisher, the biggest one in his field, says he sold over two million books just with THEM. There are dozens of books that refer to his books as either recommended reading or references. Rosencomet (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any secondary reliable sources that say that Ted Andrews sold over two million books with his primary publisher? Cunard (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. The fact is not controversial, and no one has contradicted it. A public statement by the owner of Llewellyn Worldwide is as good a source as one can ask for.Rosencomet (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Contention that he was self-published is mistaken (publisher: Llewellyn Publications). -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Ted Andrews is self-published does not add to or detract from Ted Andrew's notability. Cunard (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Sure it does. An author that can't get a major press to publish their books needs support for his notability. Non-notable authors don't get major publishers like Llewellyn to produce 17 of their books. And they don't stay in print for decades. Rosencomet (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of self-published authors are non-notable. However, not all authors with major publishers are notable. Those that are notable have received coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. I do not see that here. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An author in a relatively small-interest field can be notable without being newsworthy. I would not expect "multiple, independent reliable sources". Andrews is not a rock star, he is a well-respected author who has sold millions of books. He has been recognized by awards in his industry.Rosencomet (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep My wife has four of his books, and for years has been been recommending them (especially Animal Speak) to friends. He really has been influential in the Neo-Pagan community. Now of course, for those that consider the Neo-Pagan community to be of no account, I suppose that won't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwreinhart (talk • contribs) 13:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC) — Gwreinhart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do you have secondary reliable sources that prove that Andrews "has been influential in the Neo-Pagan community"? Cunard (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obits listed in The Witches' Voice and The Wild Hunt indicate his importance to the Neo-Pagan communuity. Rosencomet (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Witches' Voice link is a reprint of the first two paragraphs of a post on a blog. The Wild Hunt obituary (http://wildhunt.org/blog/2009/10/ted-andrews-19xx-2009.html) is also a blog. Neither of these blogs have received editorial oversight, so neither are reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a VERY prominent New Age and Neo-Pagan author and lecturer. It doesn't matter whether you have any respect for the fields, that statement is still true. He is an award winning author, and his books are published by major presses, not just vanity presses or other self-published methods. His career spans at least three decades. I have to say that Eusebeus sounds both uninformed and somewhat prejudiced when he makes reference to Andrews as a "self-published new age guru". I hope he recognizes that some long-time editors have now spoken up. The article can certainly use some sprucing up, though. Rosencomet (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide secondary reliable sources to verify your claims that Ted Andrews is notable? Cunard (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- First of all, and I don't understand why you don't note this, he has written over 40 books, 17 of them published by the most prominent New Age and magical publisher in the world. Has he created a notable body of work? Absolutely, with the classic Animal Speak at the top of the list. He's written best selling (in their genres), award-winning books for over thirty years.

- Look how wide-spread both his acclaim in general and the reaction to his death is in his community:

'STRONG KEEP' - the nature of "publishing" has changed greatly since the Internet and many new types of technology allow people to say, write, speak, etc. in new ways. Wikipedia is an example. Ted Andrews provided outstanding information to people (including me) who might not otherwise have access to it. His books are read by millions as has been noted elsewhere. RainbowLady77 (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC) RainbowLady77[reply]

Obituaries[edit]

- The problem with a google book search on Ted Andrews is that there's so MUCH to go through. After 16 pages referencing his books, you finally get to the dozens of referrals to his books by authors and inclusions in recommended reading lists. I'm adding a short list of references to the article. But when an editor says "he's written 40 books, they stayed in print for decades, he's won several awards, one of his books is considered a classic, he's also produced many CDs & cassettes, his passing is noted throughout the community he writes for, and he's sold over TWO MILLION copies of his books just from Llewellyn Worldwide" and Cunard says "yeah, but can you provide support that he's notable", I just don't see what else is necessary.

- Here are a few books that reference Ted Andrews and/or his work:

Going Native or Going Naive?: White Shamanism and the Neo-Noble Savage by Dagmar Wernitznig
Making Magick: What it Is and How it Works by Edain MCcCoy
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Divining the Future by Laura Scott, Mary Kay Linge, Deborah S. Romaine
Complete Idiot's Guide to Pet Psychic Communication by Debbie McGillivray, Eve Adamson
Dancing with Dragons: Invoke Their Ageless Wisdom & Power by Deanna J. Conway
Animals as Teachers & Healers: True Stories & Reflections by Susan Chernak McElroy
Becoming Multisensory by Donna Kettler Guice
Selling the Sacred: American Indians and the New Age by Ray A. Hemachandra

Rosencomet (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

Analysis of the sources posted above by Rosencomet (talk · contribs):
A1. Llewellyn Worldwide Author's Biography is from Ted Andrews' publishing company. It cannot be considered independent of the subject.
- Llewellyn Worldwide is a major publisher. All publishers get biographical data from their authors. Different presses are likely to have similar data from the same source. The important point is: Llewellyn would NOT publish material in it's author's biographies that is not factual, and unless you have contrary data, it makes sense to accept this source. Andrews has neither ownership nor is an agent of this company.Rosencomet (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Llewellyn Worldwide is the publisher for Ted Andrews. It cannot be classified as an independent, reliable source, so a biography from this website does not confer notability. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A2. Controverscial.com Biography is a personal website. Because it has not received editorial fact-checking, it cannot be considered a reliable source.
A3. Sayahda Website: Animal Totems is also from a personal website.
A4. Ascension Gateway: Spiritual Quotes is a website that provides quotes. It has not received the fact-checking that sources such as newspapers or magazines have received, so it is not a reliable source that establishes notability.

Obituaries:
B1. Sounds True Obituary for Ted Andrews is an unreliable source because it is a page from WordPress.com, a website that hosts blogs.

- Sounds True is a well-known company which produces audiobooks, CDs, and DVDs among other products. This obit was part of their news site, Sounds True Press Room. Whatever else wordpress may host, this is a legitimate obituary within the industry.Rosencomet (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardless of who reprinted this unreliable blog, this source is still insufficient. There has not been fact-checking of these sources. This may be a "legitimate obituary within the industry", but it is not a reliable source that meets Wikipedia's sourcing standards. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B2. Horizons Magazine Obituary for Ted Andrews is a blog.
B3. The Witches' Voice Obituary for Ted Andrews is a reprint of another blog, the Wild Hunt Obituary.

- Witches' Voice is a well-respected webzine in the Neo-Pagan community which would not reprint this obit if it did not meet their standards.Rosencomet (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may be a "a well-respected webzine in the Neo-Pagan community", but the fact remains that this obituary from a blog has not received the fact-checking that reliable sources receive. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B4. Wild Hunt Obituary is a blog. See also B3.
B5. Owl Athena Obituary is a reprint of B4. This link is from Blogspot, a website that hosts blogs.
B6. One Witch way Obituary is from a blog. None of these sources are sufficient because none of them are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

Yes, he has won awards, but none of the awards are notable. His books stayed in print, but this does not establish notability per WP:AUTHOR. If he wrote "a classic", that classic must have received reviews in reliable sources (eg. a newspaper or a magazine; not blogs). I have been unable to find any reviews in reliable sources. Two million of his books are sold worldwide; have any secondary reliable sources covered this? Cunard (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- A public statement from the owner of Llewellyn Worldwide that Ted Andrews books (just those Llewellyn published, mind you) have sold over two million copies is certainly sufficient. There is no data offered to refute this or a single other fact presented in the article by a single editor.Rosencomet (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not determined by how many books an individual has sold. Notability is gauged by the coverage in reliable sources resulting from those sales. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without independent reliable sources, this individual does not pass the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Forty books, at least nine recordings, several tarot & other card decks, several references in other author's books, and sales in the millions - of course he's notable.Rosencomet (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you provide independent, reliable sources that verify these facts? Cunard (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of secondary reliable sources. I have searched for sources on Google, Google News Archive, and Google Books, but have been unable to find substantial sources that are independent of the subject. This obituary from The Columbus Dispatch, a local daily newspaper, was recently added to the article, but it does not establish notability because it appears to have been submitted by the family. None of the other sources are reliable, so this article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break[edit]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG. Whether the subject or his philosphies are liked or disliked is not relevent. Meeting criteria of WP:N is. And oh.... I am neither a sock or SPA. Cheers... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources in the article are independent, reliable sources, so Andrews does not meet WP:GNG or WP:N. Furthermore, none of the "delete" votes have talked about [w]hether the subject or his philosphies are liked or disliked", so your bringing that up is irrelevant to this debate. I concur that this individual should be judged on whether or not he meets WP:N, so this article should be deleted for failing that guideline. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cunard's analysis of the sources. Excellent and thorough as always. I note that I have independently conducted a search and am unable to locate any reliable source providing significant coverage. Tim Song (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much though I agree with Cunard's words and those of Tim Song, they appear to have omitted to consider a redirect to Edward Andrews.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have omitted to consider a redirect to Edward Andrews because I believe that "Ted Andrews" is an implausible target for "Edward Andrews". Cunard (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a well-known New Age author and lecturer. His many books and his high book sales attest his notability. I've heard of his appearances for decades at several events, both New Age and Neopagan. Animal Speak is a very well known book of it's type. JuliusAaron (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources that discuss Ted Andrews' high book sales? The lack of third-party reliable sources about Andrews' books strongly indicates that this individual's contributions to the literary industry do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. In its present form, the article violates Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability because none of the information in the article is sourced to a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cunard says it best - we need some indication of independent notice. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:20, 4 November 2009 (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 Vision Forum and delete the two lists. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Park[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has no third party sources (nor have searches turned up any likely reliable third party sources that may be forthcoming) so fails both WP:GNG & WP:V ("If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"). Sole source for the article is the frontpage of the topic's own website, referenced for the WP:PLOT summary (previously advertising sources had been referenced for the bare existence of the Audio CDs of the show), which does not in any case verify this material (elements of it may be verified by various subpages of the website).

Whilst claims were made in the previous AfD that this is a "highly syndicated radio program" and thus inherently notable, (i) the level of syndication (and other similar claims of popularity) was never substantiated (either at the AfD or in the article), (ii) radio is neither as monolithic as television, nor is its viewership as well documented, so an argument from the inherent notability of syndicated television programs does not apply, & (iii) the whole concept of 'inherent notability' is disputed (third party sources are necessary for creation of an encyclopaedic article, so attempting to decouple notability from the existence of third-party sources would appear to be unhelpful).

I am also nominating the following wholly-unsourced spinoff articles:

— Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V. Crafty (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are several Google hits, but they are all advertising for the series, or for its spin-off merchandise, plus one or two blog entries. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge very selectively to Institute for Creation Research. Since the last AfD no reliable, independent sources have been identified and I am unable to find any. Based on this I do not think that the topic meets the criteria for an independent article as set out in the general notability guideline. The arguments for keeping the article presented at the last AfD appear to be weak, based on - so far unfounded - speculation that third party sourcing existed and unsupported claims of popularity. Guest9999 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - or pehaps merge to Vision Forum? - though that article seems almost as poorly sourced and close to failing WP:RS and WP:V. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the article contains no sourced information, let alone sourced information relevant to the potential merge targets. Therefore any merger would have to be as a bare redirect. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect & Merge main article with Vision Forum; Delete the two subordinate lists. If we are to believe a primary source, this show is syndicated on ~500 radio stations across the country. I clicked on a few states at random here and each had between 10 to 15 radio stations. I see no reason to disbelieve what is on their website even though it can't be used as a reliable source for the article. I think that ~500 stations is fairly extensive syndication and the number of people who listen to the show is probably high enough (how many listeners would there be— 100 per station? 1,000 per station?) that the show meets our notability standards in the sense that it is worthy of being noted or worthy of notice. Now, while this notability very well may be true, we have a grave problem of verifying it. Since we can't verify, we must merge the basic facts to a small section of the parent article on the organization that creates this show. Merging is valid, since the notability guidelines only determine which topics are worthy of an article, but should not be used to directly determine or limit the content of articles. Since appropriate sources cannot be found for this topic, we should consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that a large number of stations on the station map (maybe even as much as half, or even more) do not list a day/time for the program. That may mean that it is not currently in syndication there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would further note (again) that not even "the basic facts" are unsourced, and therefore not suitable for merging. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to Vision Forum per LinguistAtLarge, for now. The subject certainly has the potential for notability (and could be argued that it is notable because of its syndication numbers, but that's shaky). However, there just isn't enough sources for a stand-alone article yet. This is without prejudice; I'd be fine if the article is restored in the near future if sources are available. I'll also be willing to complete the merge if needed. American Eagle (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While it is true that he has had a public exhibition, it's not enough to show how that establishes his notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Williams (calligrapher)[edit]

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

Non-notable calligrapher, no sources to establish notability; contested prod, removed by editor who added a link to a blog post in an attempt to establish notability Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established, in my view, with his public exhibition in the Yukon Arts Center sponsored by the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. Confusion does arise about whether he is Canadian or British both appear in the article. Samples of his works would also help.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this had been "a substantial part of a significant exhibition" (one way of meeting WP:ARTIST), one would have thought there would have been sources covering it. I think it's obvious it doesn't rise to this level, not even close. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established An interesting point. What is a notable calligrapher?

The English calligrapher Edward Johnston could be considered a notable calligrapher. The German type designer Herman Zapf could be considered a notable calligrapher. The American calligrapher Brody Neuenschwander could be considered a notable calligrapher. The Irish calligrapher Denis Brown could be considered a notable calligrapher. The English calligrapher Ann Camp could be considered a notable calligrapher. The German calligrapher Hans Joachime Burgert could be considered a notable calligrapher. Interestingly there are no articles on Neuenschwander, Brown, Camp, or Burgert in Wikipedia.

Who decides what constitutes a notable calligrapher? A professor with a PHD in Sociology? Is this professor a calligrapher? Is he an expert on art, craft, design?

~~*Keep~~ Notability established Ummm, the point raised about his public exhibition in the Yukon Arts Center sponsored by the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts is interesting. Are there other calligraphers in Canada who have had exhbitions in a venue of this stature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggie Smythe (talk • contribs) 09:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC) — Reggie Smythe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I don't think the Yukon Arts Center is enough to satisfy WP:ARTIST. What is a notable calligrapher? Either one who has broken through to major visual arts exhibition spaces, or who is recognised within the field (membership of groups with specific criteria for entry, mentions in books about calligraphy, awards).--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Neutral per Ethico - weak because it is hard to be notable today purely as a calligrapher (in the West I mean). He may well be the most notable calligrapher in Canada today (or for all I know ever - there is no Canadian category), but that may not mean he is very notable. Who is a notable calligrapher? Well everyone else I looked at in the category tree, except maybe Dave Wood, though some are notable for something else but were calligraphers. Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ethicoaestheticist...Modernist (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2009 (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Ledesma Jayme[edit]

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

non-notable subject, WP:COI User234 (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "provincial governor and assemblyman in the Philippines" with a variety of sources. If the claim is that the sources don't back up the text, that needs explaining. Rd232 ^talk 09:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't back up the text indeed. And the bulk of the article has been copied and pasted from an NHI pdf file. User234 (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link? Rd232 ^talk 15:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rd232. "Antonio Jayme" seems to be a good search term, though there's another Antonio Jayme in Californian history. I'm curious what the alleged conflict of interest is. --Chris Johnson (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jayme lent his John Hancock to ratify a constitution to form a new government after Spanish defeat (http://www.zambotoday.com/index.php?/archives/1227-Zamboanga-The-Greatest-Republic-in-History-Part-10.html) ... Thank you, Rd232, for deleting uncivil comments made by an editor here earlier.Samito1050 (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject meets the ff. guidelines for notability for a politician: (1.) People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges. (2.) Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. (3.) Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Samito1050 (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 20:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Figueroa Gonzaga[edit]

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

Non-notable person User234 (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fernando Figueroa Gonzaga is one of the more notable names in Negros society, especially among the older folk who remember local history. A growing number of references to Fernando Figueroa Gonzaga, Fernando Gonzaga or FFG only mention his donations or companies in passing, without giving broader context. This is due to the fact that Gonzaga died in 1970, decades before the internet was available in the region. An entry here at Wikipedia will be appreciated by younger minds, esp. from Bacolod City which is fast turning into a tech & BPO or business process outsourcing hub-- miles away from the "hegemony" or "imperialism" of Manila, the capital of the Philippines. As the region begins to become more computer-savvy, you may expect more articles of this type to find its way in Wikipedia. Thank you. Samito1050 (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To give broader context, this was added: "The NGC opened on August 4, 2008 after much controversy ranging from a land title that was "lost" by the Bacolod City Register of Deeds to 12 court cases filed against the financing and construction of the government hub. These were alleged as examples of political harassment against the Gonzaga legacy. [ref1] It must be noted that the Gonzagas were one of the "ruling families" in Negros Occidental during its early years in the second quarter of the 20th century.[ref2]" ...I hope to post more information and pictures of the Gonzaga marker found at the National Government Center by Nov 8, 2009-- as I am still awaiting these via human messenger. Samito1050 (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per my opinion, this person is not that notable. maybe redirect to NGC per WP:BIO1E, but not a stand-alone article. If one reads WP:Notability (people), doubts will arise regarding the matter. Furthermore, the bulk of the article does not dwell on the person in question himself, but on the matter regarding controversies surrounding "lost documents" concerning land titles related to the government center building. this is WP:OFFTOPIC. might as well rename the article the "NGC controversy". but that would be a non-notable event in itself and deserves deletion. may i also point out that the "keep" votes above do not address the issue of the subject's notability. Jalbuena (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1.) The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one-- although in this case the honor is very local in character: a lifetime achievement award given at a provincial capital's foundation day. It must be noted, as per Rd232's comment on this editor's talk page that "there is a certain provincialism to English Wikipedia, dominated by US editors and topics they're interested in. There is a Wikiproject on that issue, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias." ...I would propose that this type of "systemic bias" also exists among Filipino editors against articles coming from different regions in the Philippines. This means that editors from Manila or Malaybalay in Quezon may have systemic bias against articles coming from Bacolod City or Iloilo, and vice-versa. The Wikiproject on that issue, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias hopes to clear such problems of "hegemony" or cultural imperialism of one region against another.

(2.) The basic criteria on notability states, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

(3.) Although the "NGC controversy" has received press coverage, it does not merit its own article entry. It was mentioned in "Fernando Figueroa Gonzaga", nevertheless, to give more context to a land donation made under Gonzaga's name.

(4.) The NGC issues on land titles and lost documents are only mentioned in passing in "Fernando Figueroa Gonzaga".

(5.) Strictly speaking "Fernando Figueroa Gonzaga" is notable due to acts of philanthropy done in his name, whether by himself or by his heirs. In this regard, discussion on the person himself was limited.

(6.) It must be noted that Negros Occidental's economy suffered severely when the sugar industry almost collapsed in the 70s and 80s (pls. read Negros Occidental). Coming out from that state of economic turmoil, donations of hectares of land made under "Fernando Figueroa Gonzaga" are notable as no one else has made sizeable donations owing to the region's relatively bad economy. No one comes to mind who has given back to the region-- with the notable exception of Oscar M. Lopez who donated hectares of Guimaras land after an oil spill affected parts of Guimaras and Panay Island a few years ago.

(7.) Donations to pave the way for a "National Government Center", a public market for the poor, and a public elementary school, among others, in an impoverished region like Negros Occidental in the Philippines is part of an enduring historical record. Samito1050 (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect. The main coverage of the article and the sources are of the National Government Center controversy, therefore the article should be renamed and re-written to focus on that controversy, and the late F.F. Gonzaga should be given a paragraph for background. See the Fathima Rifqa Bary controversy article as an example. In that article, the individual isn't notable as much as the event occuring around it. The event itself has received multiple in-depth coverage from third party reliable sources, the subject of this article has not. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1) The person received an award which is NON-NOTABLE. (The award itself is NON-NOTABLE). 2) Published secondary sources concerning the subject is NOT EXTENSIVE. (That is evident when clicking the search links provided with the deletion nomination.) 3) The NGC controversy itself is NON-NOTABLE. 4) The "lost titles" controversy does not even deserve a mention in the biographical article, it happened long after gonzaga was dead. Assuming that gonzaga is notable, which he is NOT. 5) Philanthropy by itself does not make the subject NOTABLE. There are many examples of this case, especially those who choose to remain anonymous; enumerating these, however would try the patience of the reading admins. 6) We do not use Wikipedia articles to reference other Wikipedia articles; this is a basic tenet. 7) Reading admins, allow me to state something out of topic, as this is what the author has chosen as his last argument: The province of Negros Occidental in the Philippines is NOT impoverished. It may be in the eyes of the author since he is a rich man and has all the trappings of the rich. (BMW's and Big bikes.) The oil spill and Guimaras has entirely nothing to do with the notability issue of gonzaga. User234 (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2009 (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, unambiguous advertising, also web content that made no claim of minimal importance: a Web 2.0 company dedicated to creating product reviews while nurturing a social networking aspect..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihcoyc (talk • contribs)

Sazze[edit]

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

This site and the following two sites make up a trio of interlinked articles which seems somewhat spammy and are of dubious notability.

Delete per WP:SPAM. -- ISLANDERS27(UTC)
Speedy Delete G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. 龗 (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open source 2.0[edit]

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

Yet another neologism created by bolting 2.0 onto the end of something. Does not appear to be notable, most likely OR. Artw (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Open source, if that's the case. -- ISLANDERS27 07:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can find no mention of this online, fails WP:NOR. MuffledThud (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete bollocks: The term "Open Source 2.0" is associated with the marrying of open source software and Web 2.0 applications. Yet, as the open source movement is considered a first mover in leveraging interactive information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the World Wide Web - Open Source 2.0 applies to the software platform that underlies many Web 2.0 successes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strange neologism, this is. JBsupreme (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found exactly 3 WP:RSes on this: 2 were one-off uses/coinages by people being interviewed, the 3rd was the title of a Linux Journal article which I would guess (article wasn't FUTON-compliant) probably also used it as an informal neologism. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jobanova[edit]

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

German job-listing website. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB, also the article is suspiciously ad-like. Artw (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though I can't understand the sources perfectly, a look at them seems to indicate they're either passing mentions or press release style articles. I can't find anything better than that by taking a look myself. And, the article does have an ad tone, not quite G11, but awfully close. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; this would appear to be web content that makes no case of minimal importance; the only inkling of significance for this commercial web site is that it was developed out of a university project. I don't think that's good enough. The rest of the article is pure sales brochure, giving us no information other than a features list, and meaningless links to bollocksy irrelevancies like "Web 2.0". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. No claims to notability. And, yes, bollocksy irrelevances. :) • Anakin ^(talk) 00:53, 5 November 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indie music scene[edit]

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

An article that tries to list and describe every Independent music scene in the world. So many issues, first I doubt a clear inclusion criteria will ever be established. Second, there are probably 5 different scenes for every city. Referencing most of this is insanely hard. It only seems to be concerned with current music scenes., but if it was expanded to include more historic info that would just magnify every other problem we have here. I could go on but I think that covers most of the big issues. Ridernyc (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing wrong with having general articles. Discussing whether to split it is a question for the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consolidated article on music scenes worldwide. And since many of the bands mentioned are signed to syndicated/RIAA labels, citations shouldn't be difficult to retrieve, especially if bands mentioned historically define their metropolitan music scene .--Danteferno (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'Indie' as a genre is meaningless and, as Danteferno said, many of the bands are signed to syndicated/RIAA labels rendering the independent artist definition meaningless too. Better to focus on cleaning up pages like Indie rock in the Netherlands than trying to maintain a frankly unmaintainable list. K602 (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2009 (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 already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indiahorsesale[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB and the WP:MOS. Btilm 01:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -This was already tagged for speedy deletion by User:Quanticle under G11 of the Criteria for speedy deletion, do you not think it would have been better to wait for the speedy to have been dealt with before opening this discussion? On another note your statement that the article fails WP:MOS is not a valid reason to open an article for deletion discussion. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I know it is not a valid reason. I just put it there to prove that it is not wikified. Honest to goodness, I would have preferred an AfD rather than a speedy delete. Btilm 03:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness Btilm I'm going to have to agree with a speedy on this one, as an article on a website that so far, fails to meet both Wikipedia's notability guideline for web content and the General notability guideline. The website is yet to even receive a traffic ranking [23]. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay. I respect your opinion. I will leave the speedy delete tag on their and leave the choice up to an administrator. Btilm 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to have been deleted. What do we do now? Warrah (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (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. No real arguments to keep, and I see little point in a further relisting Kevin (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syser[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see the article's talk page Josh Parris 03:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did. That doesn't show notability per WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 08:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a 32-bit x86 kernel-level debugger for the Windows NT OS family, and no home should be without one, surely. Even if sources were available, they'd likely be of limited interest or circulation, so this has hardly any chance of being a notable software product. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:15, 29 October 2009 (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. Invoking WP:SNOW for this keep, also acknowledging that I've !voted on it. No prejudice against a second AFD once a minimum of time has passed. tedder (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Mitchell[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines or those for music. Media coverage is regarding her death, which is one event only. ... discospinster _talk 00:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Mitchell is currently attracting national attention and international attention, being reported by CTV, CBC, The Star, The Gazette, Reuters, London Free Press, The Austalian, and others. Her death is also one of the very few recorded deaths by coyotes and was launching a music career, already being nominated for an award.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 00:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This may be a slight misunderstanding of WP:ONEEVENT; if this was Bob and Doug off the street who were killed by a coyote, that'd be deletable under WP:BLP1E. This is someone who was notable or borderline notable, and the sources are not "cover[ing] the person only in the context of a particular event". tedder (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep She was even known here, in Europe. Make a good page and ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalrec (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A tour of the east coast of Canada is close enough to "national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." (see WP:MUSIC) There is coverage of her as a musician. See these articles from Now magazine, particularly this review of her album. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per the above. -ClockworkLunch (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was one of only two deaths ever attributed to coyotes, from what I read. She is notable, in her music career respect, as well. If her article is deleted, then a "Taylor Mitchell coyote attack" article is warranted. (See Kelly Keen coyote attack.) Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep As for being borderline notable....she was more notable than several hundred (if not thousands) sports figures who have current articles at wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.52.51 (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is verifiable evidence of a promising career and this is a very unusual death.Letterofmarque (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe there are adequate reliable sources to write a verifiable, NPOV, NOR biography and I believe that there was enough coverage and interest before this incident in her but that the tragic circumstances of her early death only brings more notability (in the WP:N Wikipedia sense). DoubleBlue (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the meaning of NOT TABLOID., A freak accident, of the most transient interest. As for notability otherwise, she was just embarking on her first tour, a/c the references. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a misreading of WP:BLP1E as well. Although I don't know whether anybody would have gotten around to writing this today if not for what happened, she'd certainly be notable enough to be eligible for an article if she were still alive. A nomination for a major award, a partially completed national tour, Justin Rutledge and Lynn Miles and Suzie Vinnick and John Dinsmore and Michael Johnston playing on her debut album? Yowza. This isn't a case where somebody's mistaking 1E for notability; it's a case where the 1E caused somebody to notice that a person who was already notable enough for an article anyway didn't actually have one yet. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Bearcat here. This artist had achieved sufficient notoriety to warrant a page in any case. Her tragic early death is not the underlying reason for the article, frankly. Perhaps it could be rewritten to focus more on her early career accomplishments. The fact that she was killed before reaching her full potential does not detract from her career achievements thus far. I find it odd that a national artist is nominated for deletion, yet articles on Presidential pets are routinely defended... Posthocergopropterhoc (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She may not have had an article prior to her unusual death but she would meet notability guidelines given her award nomination and partially completed national tour. Steve-Ho (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PlayVix[edit]

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

Magnet for original research. I couldn't find any reliable sources about it. HamburgerRadio (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous attack page Speedy Delete per speedy criterion G-10. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declined G10. If it's a hoax, it's G3. G10 is not for attacks on things that don't actually exist. G10 is a nuclear option, and I just don't see a need for it in this case. No opinion on AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be G3, or if anything, its more patent nonsense to be honest. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear. I'm not saying this software doesn't exist. I did some digging at Talk:PlayVix --HamburgerRadio (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this should be deleted. After doing some research on the subject, I can't see any legitimate sources that describe what PlayVix is or what it does. At the very least, it meets the notability criteria for deletion.

Quanticle (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ah Puch. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah pukuh[edit]

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

delete, presumably "Ah Pukuh" is intended to refer to Ah Puch, a name for a Maya death deity that we already have an article on. While there are several variant spellings and names, Ah Pukuh is not one of them. In some highland Mayan languages there is a term pukuh meaning an evil spirit in traditional folklore, but that's not really related to or the same thing as the precolumbian death god. Instead the name Ah Pukuh is something appearing only in the juvenile fiction book Middleworld. No reason to keep this even as a redirect to Ah Puch, it's not a plausible name variation, and is incorrect. cjllw ʘ TALK 07:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —cjllw ʘ TALK 08:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ah Puch. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than redirect to Ah Puch, Ah Puch should be redirected to Ah Pukuh. Far from being implausible, Ah Pukuh is the correct name according to both Eric Thompson the eminent Maya scholar and Prof Marc Zender of Harvard. Thompson writes: "Brinton (1895:44) cites Father Hernandez, quoted in Las Casas, as the source for Ah Puch as a name of the death god, and that name has been accepted by most modern writers, including myself. In fact, no such name occurs in the source; it is written Eopuco, probably Ah Pucu, which is surely the same as Pucuh, name for the lord of the underworld in Tzeltal, Tzotzil, and Tojolabal" See Thompson, J. Eric S, Maya History and Religion. Civilization of the American Indian Series, No. 99. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0-8061-0884-3. OCLC 177832. 1970 The use of Ah Puch is an error that has gone uncorrected for far too long. Neatguy (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to promote The Truth^TM. We say what the weight of reliable sources says. Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ah Puch as the most plausible spelling per the sources. Alternatively, as a compromise to Neatguy, above, I'd suggest a merge and redirect to Ricardo Montalban. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per what credible sources - Tiger? (The Ah Puch article is sorely lacking in any references.) I'd say both entries should be listed under god A. Bolon Tzakab (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new article on Maya Death Gods (including the Death Gods of the Popol Vuh and Kisin/Cizin). Pukuh will find its place there. 94.212.212.36 (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maya_Death_Gods"ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page New section History Move Watch Personal toolsTry Beta Retal My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out Navigation Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.212.36 (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2009 (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 WP:CSD#A1 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Histology technician[edit]

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

This is not an article, it is a resume Nothingofwater (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2009 (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. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Toyota hybrids[edit]

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

Another example of US-centric quasi-advertisement comparison. Why only Toyota hybrids? Unnecessary comparison, uncited and reeks of spam. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find this useful and interesting. Yes, it's US centric, but that can be fixed. It's a new technology and the potential of hybrids is the subject of public policy debate as well as technical interest. Why only Toyota? Because it would be unmanageable to include all hybrids. Ccrrccrr (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the spam. It is cited. What is necessary on wikipedia? It is useful. Eventually there will be a comparison of hybrids in a certain car class. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see what's wrong with it being only Toyota hybrids. That's a perfectly reasonable breakdown, afterall, we do divide things by company... as for being US centric... that's more problematic. 76.66.201.240 (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is an almanac, among other things. Nothing wrong with this sort of comparisons. The US-centric argument is, as always, ridiculous. Toyota is an international company, headquartered in Japan. They sell vehicles all over the world. Dream Focus 10:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that why the prices are in US$, the cars are only those available in the US and uses US imperial units given by the US EPA as a primary unit? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they only be available in the US? Even if they only sell them here first, they don't go through the trouble of designing and producing something if they weren't going to sell it in every market out there. And every movie article out there shows how many US dollars it cost to make and how much money it made, listed in US dollars once again, that it make in various nations. Its what what most English speaking people use as currency. Dream Focus 00:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the US dollar in this article is correct per WP:CURRENCY. However, units should technically be metric per MOS:CONVERSIONS. SnottyWong talk 21:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the page useful, just thought I'd comment on the tag I saw on the page. Trapertoy (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a good summary article. This is the appropriate way to present the material-- individual articles of models if justified will expand on the details. This is not US-Centric--cars are sold on a regional basis, and similar articles should be written for other regions DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A reasonable comparison article. Instead having (only) an article comparing all hybrid vehicles would be less readable and for some purposes less useful. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2009 (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 arguments to delete besides nomination. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rahimafrooz[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable company, and I can't find any RS for the company even existing. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biggest battery manufacturer in Bangladesh, among others. Gets noted in various bangladeshi newspapers such as: here, here and here. --President of Internets (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by President of Internets (talk · contribs) prove that this company passes WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the nominator's argument a bit difficult to understand, given the links helpfully provided at the top of this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PoI. JBsupreme (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2009 (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. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork, all differences could simply be explained in United States customary units \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge to United States customary units? If we're merging, merge to English units. JIMp_talk·cont 21:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why the US article, why not the English article? Since it should be in both articles, why not have a separate one? 76.66.201.240 (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a summary, neutrally article is useful; I'm not happy about the naming however. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unsourcedalicious! I can see where a readable table might be added to both articles, but this is a mass of statistics. I imagine that all of this information is elsewhere, so I see no point in having a table that recites that one imperial pint is 1.20094992550 American pints ("1.20094992548, 1.20094992549, 1.20094992552 -- Dammit, don't you know how to handle an eye dropper? Now we've got to start over, you stupid Yank!"). The primary function of a table is to simplify things, and I have difficulty in endorsing a merger of this bus schedule to another article. Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could this article be merged, perhaps, but as a stand alone it is notable and informative if not comprehensively referenced--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very easily sourceable, and a summary of the articles on the different units. This is an appropriate summary way to present the material--the individual articles will expand on the details. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourceable and useful information. Many books in the 19th century had long articles on the differences in units of measure between the imperial and U.S. systems, and their origens. See [24]], [25], [26], [27]. That such a comparison is encyclopedic is demonstrated by its coverage in print encyclopedias such as 1912 and other editions of Americana [28] up to the present, as well as Britannica. It would make a general article on weights and measures or History of measurementtoo long, but that could also be an appropriate home. Edison (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GodFather[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GameOn (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - There is coverage in Personal Computer World. There is coverage in French, but I am not clear on what this publication is. And it is covered in Ghack which is a technology blog so it's not clear that meets our current criteria for reliable sourcing. If some more reviews or coverage can be turned up, then I'd fall into the keep side. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Well, the first question I would be asking is, is it notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. If so, the article needs enough inline citations from reliable sources to not only verify the information given in the article but to alsop establish its notability for inclusion on this encylcopedia. From what I can see, I would have to agree with Whpq above. As the article stands right now, does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. It may be covered by some sources, but if it is notable, one would imagine that there would be reliable sources able to be used as references to back up the article's ability for inclusion. This means both established notability and verified facts. Until that time, it is not a competent article for a keep.--NiceHotShower (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if deleted, redirect to The Godfather 70.29.209.91 (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2009 (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. Notability is the key here, and the arguments show that this subject is not notable. Kevin (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Capital Sounds[edit]

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

Listing removed prod. Non-notable team. Never actually played a game and still has never played a game. Appears to be a failed expansion attempt of a very low level basketball league. DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems useful to basketball enthusiasts. -- ISLANDERS27 09:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Useful is different than notable. A subject must pass WP:N in order to have an article. There has been much prescedence that teams that have never actually played a game in a league but were only proposed expansion teams don't get an article. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The team's website is a broken link and the league's website does not mention them. There is no evidence that they ever played in any non-exhibition games. The non-redlink players on their roster are two musicians and a hockey player. J04n(talk page) 00:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trillium Power Wind 2[edit]

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

Seems to lack notability and reliable third party coverage. Weak delete from me (for now). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too speculative and promotional in tone. Trillium Power Wind 1 is the notable project which has received third party coverage, but Trillium Power Wind 2 has not. Johnfos (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful information into Trillium Power Wind 1 as a separate section. Beagel (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think there is a place for some articles on proposed nearshore windfarms since some (e.g. Cape Wind) have become major news items as environmental impact, "visual impact" to shore areas, bird kills, etc. have become controversial issues. Having said that, there is nothing in this article that would indicate Trillium Power Wind 2 has generated any such controversy. So deletion is the proper course for now; the article can be reconstituted when this is under construction or if it becomes controversial at a later date. N2e (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2009 (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. No arguments to keep Kevin (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectPartner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ProjectPartner

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

Contested proposed deletion. This article about a business making non-consumer software is first and foremost unambiguous advertising. The article contains little information other than a feature list, and shilling telling you how this helps you make money and is a great investment opportunity to boot. For instance:

The Flash user interface and Flex-driven SaaS platform mean that anyone with an Internet connection and web browser can use ProjectPartner.
In keeping with the underlying objective of project management software, this dashboard reporting allows managers to track profit margins and manage resources more efficiently.
The SaaS business model, coupled with Adobe Flex-based development, will ensure ongoing growth for the company and opportunities for investors.

Notability for this business may also be dubious, but given the obvious promotional tone this is a side issue. The Computerworld pieces cited are either not chiefly about this business[29], or would appear to be based on press releases announcing a change in business models.[30] They are all from computing and IT trade publications, and don't suggest that this package is on its way to becoming a household name. But even if this software or business could support an article, this text is not that article. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2009 (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. No arguments to keep. Kevin (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Aghadiuno[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:RS, article has been speedily-deleted three times already, maintenance tags repeatedly removed from this version. MuffledThud (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTE. A google search shows no more than 167 results, none of the results show any notability. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:14, 29 October 2009 (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.