< 29 October	31 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 no consensus for deletion. Redirecting can be dealt with on the talk page, etc. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okefenokee Oar[edit]

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

This is a new "tradition" too fresh to be notable yet. Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party. It has received third-party coverage but all of it local. Agree with Orangemike, too new for its own page at this point. J04n(talk page) 01:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Rename to 'Florida-Georgia football rivalry' per argument made by Davemaul. I was actually surprised that such a page does not exist, the rivalry is notable and a bit about the oar would be great. I still think that a page generated prior to, or just after, the 'first annual' anything is too soon. Some national coverage would also be nice, the game is today so let's see if papers outside of Florida and Georgia cover it tomorrow. J04n(talk page) 12:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I checked three sources that covered the game here, here, and here, none reported on the awarding of the oar. Another google & google news search one day after it has been awarded and there is still no non-local coverage. The other similar awards have a much longer history. J04n(talk page) 13:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment. For recent news coverage of the Okefenokee Oar, see Okefenokee Oar New Trophy For Football Rivalry, UF and Georgia student body presidents to battle for huge paddle, here, Winner of Saturday's game gets bragging rights, 'Okefenokee Oar', UGA, Florida playing for new trophy, Florida-Georgia winner to get 'Okefenokee Oar', and SGAs begin new tradition. Cbl62 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response to response: as I pointed out, all of this is regional coverage. I agree that the rivalry should have a page but not the trophy. J04n(talk page) 19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't agree that it's too new. Florida-Georgia is one of the premier rivalries in college football. Trophies associated with college football's significant rivalries (most less signficant than Georgia-Florida) are acknowledged to be notable. See, e.g., Paul Bunyan Trophy, Paul Bunyan's Axe, Little Brown Jug (football), Old Oaken Bucket, Floyd of Rosedale, Florida Cup, Telephone Trophy, Iron Skillet, Slab of Bacon, Apple Cup, Peace Pipe, Platypus Trophy, Jeweled Shillelagh, Steel Tire, Land Grant Trophy, Old Brass Spittoon, Sweet Sioux Tomahawk and Fremont Cannon. Cbl62 (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party is an outdated reference that is historical. The current, accepted reference is the Okefenokee Oar, as confirmed by the two schools. Disagree with Orangemike and J04n to Merge. Cocktail Party is a separate reference. Agree with Cbl62 that the rivalry is significant and the tradition is valid regardless of date estabished. Davemaul (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Non-local coverage has already surfaced. Here is acknowledgement from Baltimore, MD [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemaul (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. this is just a mention in a blog J04n(talk page)

response to comment: The Beachwood Reporter out of Chicago has now picked this up and reported on the Oar in their article summarizing the week's college football games[2] Davemaul 21:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The physical item is new, but the rivalry is old. I don't see how the age of the physical trophy would make it insignificant. Last I looked the general criteria for notability, notability is met by citing independent sources of media coverage, but I don't recall any requirement that there be national coverage. That said, every article I read on the Oar referenced its introduction on CBS' television broadcast prior to the game.Dwinches (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rivalry is significant enough as is the tradition. Length is irrelevant.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party which is the main article about the rivalry. Yes the rivalry is notable, as pointed out above, but this particular award doesn't have the historical tradition that the rivalry itself does and it is best mentioned within the greater context of the rivalry. I respect Davemaul's claim that this is the replacement for the old name, but I just don't see that claim being verified in reliable sources. The Cocktail Party article itself states that the tradition is ongoing and has the halloween matchup as its latest occurance. It should probably be renamed to something like "Florida-Georgia rivalry" which I believe is our standard naming convention for articles such as this. Them From Space 01:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment. TWLOCP might be appropriate to consider keeping as a familiar name for the event, but it is unrelated to the trophy presented for winning the game, nor is it at all related to the game...it refers more to the tailgating. Davemaul 20:05, 3 November 2009

Either Redirect to The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party, or move the Cocktail party article to 'Florida-Georgia football rivalry' and then redirect it. Personally, I like "World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party," which has 1410 Google news hits. Usage of that term peaked in 2006. Abductive (reasoning) 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment. TWLOCP might be appropriate to consider keeping as a familiar name for the event, but it is unrelated to the trophy presented for winning the game, nor is it at all related to the game...it refers more to the tailgating. Davemaul 20:05, 3 November 2009

Redirect to The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party and incorporate the information about the trophy there. The rivalry is established and notable, and the trophy is just an extension of that. Grsz¹¹ 02:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment. TWLOCP might be appropriate to consider keeping as a familiar name for the event, but it is unrelated to the trophy presented for winning the game, nor is it at all related to the game...it refers more to the tailgating. Davemaul 20:05, 3 November 2009

Yes it refers to tailgating, but the game in general as well. If this wasn't the case, the article would be Florida-Georgia game, which I'm okay with, but is probably a different discussion. Grsz¹¹ 16:09, 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 keep. Tone 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven "Lenky" Marsden[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Steven "Lenky" Marsden

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

Non-notable musician, to the extent I can decode this. Orange Mike | Talk 21:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I originally nom for csd as unremarkable but someone did find 2 sources. I do like to have regional notables make it here but in this a case we need more. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The articles in the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly alone are sufficient to satisfy category 1 of WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note. Incorporated New York Times review and Entertainment Weekly story into article. J04n(talk page) 06:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Epeefleche plus per WP:COMPOSER criterion 4 as he was the 2004 ASCAP songwriter of the year, I added referenced material concerning this to his page. J04n(talk page) 13:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 15:17, 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- as has already been redirected to Uskoci.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serb Uskoks[edit]

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

This page popped up after an edit war on the page Uskoci. Creator of page seems determined to continue the war by creating a page for themselves which does not contribute anything new. Moreover, there are no sources and the "evidence" looks dubious. This seems like a deliberate attempt to undermine the main article of Uskoci. Jesuislafete (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a classic content fork. This material, if it can be properly sourced, should be in the article Uskoci. --Paularblaster 22:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Not implying that everything on that article is a lie. I simply don't see it separated from the rest (kudos to above). Er-vet-en (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in accordance with nomination. --Kebeta (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in accordance with nomination (in meantime user changed article to redirect, but all the same terms Serb and Uskoks are not related to have either article or redirect of such name). SpeedyGonsales (talk) 12:54, 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.

Jeff V. Merkey[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Community college. Tone 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community college research[edit]

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

This looks to me like a mix of an extended dictionary definition (community college research is research into community colleges) and original research. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't see the OR, where is it? Bearian (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Adequate summary, listing sources available. A merge would be possible DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between this and the wiki on community colleges? This page is no different from that one...this one contains encyclopedic knowledge of community college research organizations and publications that are mentioned in several prominent community college leadership textbooks. This wiki just pulls them together. "original" research would contain opinions and commentary...this is just a listing of research organizations on community colleges...a "literature review"...you could find this in an encyclopedia.

I have no affiliation with any of these organizations in case you try the advertising or spam route next...this wiki was meant to be a child page from the community colleges wiki...I thought about adding it to the community colleges wiki, but it seemed to clutter it up too much and make it too long...but I could live with a merge if that is what you want...I also intended on writing a two or three paragraph blurb on each of those research entities/organizations (just like the existing wikis on the american association of community colleges and the association of community college trustees...you have wikis on two of the major educational research organizations but not on several of the other majors nor any of the minors...thus, the wikis are incomplete and that is where I thought I would help to fill in, since no one else seemed to be doing it...this follows practice from the WP:first wiki)

I have also made a community college conferences wiki which has been flagged...gosh you sysops are quick to flag things as spam or advertising without any research...I have nothing to do with those conferences...again, I was just filling in the gaps....

Thus, my overall intent was to start filling in the information more on community colleges by adding onto the wikis and expanding them more...I was hoping to pass this off even more to my doctoral students at the University of Texas and around the country so we could get even more input from a variety of sources...but I don't think that is going to happen when everything is flagged for one reason or the other, even though I followed the instructions on WP:first, read about the conferences and rules for posting for conferences, did research on these conference wikis:

Here are the wiki's I researched and modeled the wiki after: Here are similar wiki pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_College_Trustees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Community_Colleges

Here are other education-related conference wikis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democratic_Education_Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Democratic_Education_Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interservice/Industry_Training,_Simulation_and_Education_Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Computers_in_Education_Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Mumammadan_Educational_Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Conference_on_Higher_Education_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Jazz_Education_(IAJE)

Here are other non-education-related conference wikis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Communication_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEF_CON_(convention) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwicon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notacon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhreakNIC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShmooCon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summercon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ToorCon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hackers_Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CodeCon

and spent the better part of four days taking suggestions from one sysop after another on posting only to work myself in big circles...so do what you want...it is clear wiki is not for educators if a third-party cannot even post a couple of blurbs to help out in the spirit for which wiki was founded...

Please do not take this negatively...thanks for considering it...but if it is not meant to be then it is not meant to be...I will not protest anymore after this if it is not allowed...four days trying is enough...

Have a good weekend.

UTAPROF ZXQ (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- clarification - There is no community college wiki that I am aware of; by "wiki" above, do you perchance mean "article in Wikipedia"? Because those are two totally different things! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (community college alumnnus)[reply]

Merge to Community college. This is good information, but it's presentation as a standalone article is awkward. Rather than just as a compromise between deletion and keeping, a merge to the community college article would be the ideal way of presenting this well-sourced material in an article that is in need of it. Them From Space 01:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's original research in the sense that it's a synthesis of the sources into something beyond what they themselves say. "Many of these institutions and organizations present the most current research and practical outcomes at annual community college conferences." is a good example of that.

This is a list. I would support a rewrite & move into "List of community college research publications". Shadowjams (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Community college. Just edit the text when merging. Warrah (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems to be the clear choice here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:28, 6 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 Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator, clear keep. Suggest rewrite by a more knowlegeable editor to include derivatives and other languages it is included in. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 22:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getopt[edit]

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

I don't think that this article is really necessary. We don't need an article for every C library, and this one is completely unreferenced, and does not even have any secondary (blog, etc.) coverage, which is common for a programming language library. Perhaps a transwiki to Wikibooks' C book would be appropriate? MacMed^talk _stalk 20:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- MacMed^talk _stalk 20:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic passes WP:N. See this article at Devshed.com and these two Google Books entries. Cunard (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those references are concerning Perl, Perl, and Java respectively. Should this AfD be closed as keep, I would suggest someone more knowledgeable expand the article to mention the variety of languages getopt is available for use in. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 01:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The second and third references both state that the perl and Java versions they describe are based on the C library's interface, so are directly relevant. —Korath (Talk) 01:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded this slightly, but can't see it ever growing beyond stub length. A merge to Command-line argument is probably best. —Korath (Talk) 02:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources above, and the article should include java, etc. Verges on a textbook/howto, but I think it can overcome those hurdles. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Cunard. Joe Chill (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sources; article does need almost complete rewrite, but topic is notable. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is clearly quite notable and important to those interested in programming topics and the nomination reasons above are not based on any policies or guidelines. As for editorial issues, the C version is generally considered to be the defacto reference standard when implementing getopt() in other languages and is a very good example to use. That said, the article probably should at least mention some of the other popular implementations. As for additional references, I would suggest starting with books from W. Richard Stevens and Brian Kernighan. Unfortunately the majority of both author's books are not going to be indexed by Google books because they are used as textbooks (and where they are indexed, they generally are not fully viewable [3] [4]). --Tothwolf (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the editor who originally requested that the previous deletion be reversed. getopt derivatives are available on many languages besides the ones already listed: Python, Ruby, D, Lua, PHP, Lisp, Haskall, BASH, R. Basically, any major programming language that runs POSIX operating system and takes options has a getopt derivative. - Pingveno 20:19, 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. NW (Talk) 21:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Friedlander[edit]

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

Article subject is not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. MirrorLockup (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin The major contributors to this article have been confirmed as a sock garden: [5]. Also, the sockmaster re-created the article twice after it was speedily deleted. So salting will likely be necessary if the article is deleted. MirrorLockup (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - A quick search of G-news could find nothing but mere mentions and quotes... Nothing significant enough to suffice WP:BIO concerns... I might be willing to change my mind if reliable sources show up that say he has actually done anything notable... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage of the subject in secondary sources. That he exists is easily verifiable, but he's usually getting himself quoted in newspapers and the like, which is really just trivial coverage. Ray^Talk 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – A judge of an appellate court is at least as notable as a political consultant, but there is no article about the judge. Bwrs (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person may be important but without in depth coverage by reliable sources an article isn't merited by WP:N. This has the side effect of weeding out uninteresting articles which just say this is the person this is his/her job. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:N or WP:BIO without significant coverage. -- Atama頭 21:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 22:35, 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 redirect to Animal Farm. NW (Talk) 21:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarcandy Mountain[edit]

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

This is a great example of a non-notable fictional plot element. We've now gotten to the point where fans of fictional works are creating articles not only about every minor character and place in the fictional work, but also about every fictional element mentioned in the work. My attempts to avoid an AFD by redirecting the article to Animal Farm were for naught. Animal Farm seems particularly prone to these articles, although most of the egregious ones have been deleted already; I can only theorize it has something to do with the grades the book is taught in US schools. A more lengthy explanation of my argument for deletion and the applicable policies can be found here. Savidan 20:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all articles are NOT equal. Sheesh! What greater understanding are we given of Orwell's meisterwerk by fluffy articles such as this? Eddie.willers (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Animal Farm. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fictional element in a fictional work? I'm a lifelong fan of Orwell and 'Animal Farm', and I say deep-six it. Maybe a redirect, but it's not going to be a deal-breaker if it doesn't get one. Jusda fax 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to animal farm. sometimes these articles on fictional things hurt my brain to think about, but then i go to google, look for any significant discussion outside of the fictional world it resides in. nothing for this. unless the pope says "if you think the afterlife is just endless food, your living in a sugarcandy mountain fantasy" and the phrase becomes commonly used for this kind of thinking about the afterlife, it wont justify an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Animal Farm article. Warrah (talk) 21:45, 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 redirect to User:Jeremjay24/MechScape. Userfied fot the time being. Could be later used in another article, as the debate shows. Tone 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete after a request from Jeremjay24. --Tone 07:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MechScape[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I created this page around 2 months ago, way before Jagex cancelled MechScape. I would understand a few keeps, because Mark Gerhard (Jagex CEO) announced that "much of the game - including its engine - will be reused in the new secret project the Jagex development team is now working on." However, when we figure out the 'secret project', we could merge this article to that. Jeremjay 24 20:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Per nom. Quiet-As-An-Ice-Cube (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think this can be speedied - G7 doesn't apply since people other than the creator have edited. It could be moved back to Jeremjay's userspace, though (which I think is where it came from?) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Jeremjay 24 22:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update If the nomination ends moving to User:Jeremjay24/MechScape, it's perfectly fine. Jeremjay 24 01:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Now that the project is defunct there is no need for this page to remain here. The most appropriate solution would be to remove this page for the time being and, in the event that Jagex does release public statements about an upcoming game OR actually releases a game, the page can be recreated under the appropriate name. 115.70.62.49 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that this falls under WP:NOTNEWS and it looks a bit WP:CRYSTALly in tone right now, there are multiple reliable sources. It's not like we don't have other articles on cancelled games. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:02, 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. Clear consensus to delete now, but this should be undeleted should he be elected. Kevin (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ashley-Hacker[edit]

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

Prospective parliamentary candidate falls below our notability threshold. Do his other activities make him notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is campaigning for selection as a prospective parliamentary candidate for the Conservative Party in the UK. What is wikipedia's policy on people using its pages for election material?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.27.45 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 October 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 19:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An unreferenced BLP for a candidate fails WP:POLITICIAN as well as WP:V... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His other activities don't add up to notability, in my view. "Youngest magistrate in the country" is tempting, but I don't think it's enough. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Gets WP:RS coverage only from running for office. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to meet WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To answer 86.151.27.45's question, using Wikipedia for any kind of campaigning is frowned upon very strongly. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but as Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (presumably already selected) for Esher and Walton (UK Parliament constituency), which is a safe Conservative seat, we are almost certainly going to need an article immediately after the next general election. If so, it may be better to keep this article for now and review the position after the election. I note that his neame does not yet appear in the Constituency article, something that should be rectified if some one can find a WP:RS on this. I fear that we will get a lot of articles like this in the next nine months in the run up to the General Election. It may be better to keep them and then do a mass cull of articles on NN failed candidates afterwards. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would change my vote to a keep if this was combined with substantial media coverage elsewhere (as I have done in one other case). However, the coverage of this candidate in Ghit is tiny. However, I'd be quite happy to userfy this in readiness for the quite likely case that he does become an MP. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:59, 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. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Travelling[edit]

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

New musical. Insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I have no idea what is going on - I am clearly new to this. I don't understand the problem. How much more notability do you require? Perhaps you could provide some more information? Srholt77 (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator believes that the subject of this article, the musical known as "The Travelling", is not notable enough to be included in its own article on Wikipedia. Are there news articles beyond the ones included in the article? Reviews, perhaps, or articles discussing upcoming touring performances? Anything you can provide to show us that the production has received coverage in multiple reliable sources, all independent of the subject, will go toward documenting notability, and thus to keeping the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:30, 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, Black Kite 19:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as it stands, this fails WP:N and its fame appears to rest on wider exposure in 2010 - which violates WP:CRYSTAL. Suggest addition of verifiable sources to establish notability with due urgency. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:54, 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 keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Army Men (series)[edit]

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

Really has nothing but guide content, a list, and a meager reception section. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep and comment I've added the rescue tag - such a long running series deserves an over-arching article, but it could do with some tidying up and sources. Artw (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i copied the list of games over to my userpage, in the idea that because this series pages is pretty poor, maybe we could just make a list of games to accompany the individual game articles in the template. The problem with the series article is the guide content and the lack of referencing. Ill support a deletion of this series article if no one is going to go after the individual game articles and delete them to. If the series article does go then i will complete the list ive started. Salavat (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Salavat (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as merge target: as bad as the article is, it beats having an article on every single entry in the series, some/most of which could stand to be merged here: Note the red links in ((Army Men series)), and also note the article on the first game in the series was merged to the series article. Nifboy (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: It's pretty trivial to find, within reviews of its component games, sources that indicate the series as a whole has a terrible reputation: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Nifboy (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. WP:NOTCLEANUP Discuss things on the talk page, don't waste our time here. Some of the games sold well, got plenty of coverage, and thus this is clearly a notable series. Dream Focus 02:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Success =/= a reason to have a series article. If it doesn't need an article, which the current contents do not establish this, then there should not be a series article. There is this misguided notion that series articles are needed if a series is successful enough or has enough games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Conversely, I don't see a need to have an article on many individual games, even if they each have sources, if a series article would suffice (which IMO is the case here). Nifboy (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as merge target tbh having this article completely done over is probably better than having all the individual articles for the games- Norse Am Legend (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just because an article is a mess and doesn't have up-to-the-last-minute information is not a reason for deletion. That's what tags are for. The article actually has a pretty good amount of information... I mean, it's series spanning a decade with hundreds of thousands of google hits and hundreds of articles (each) on major gaming websites. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanout the cruft. This is a good place to discuss mention of the Army Men series, and the broader topic is much more notable than the individual sections which are within it. Also, per Nifboy. Them From Space 01:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any valid reason for deletion; the series is notable, having recieved plenty of media coverage. In any case, the issue here is cleaning up the article and possibly merging the other articles into this one, which is not what AfD is for. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for pretty much the reasons daTheisen listed. It needs cleanup and sourcing. Not deletion. --Teancum (talk) 15:46, 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. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Workers Compensation Board of Alberta hostage crisis[edit]

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

Comment - This is not my AfD: I'm copying the debate verbatim from the article's talk page, as it was previously a red-linked debate. I personally am Neutral over this (partly due to the lack of a reason for it's deletion). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is about a news event with little local, national, or international significance. Hostage takings are a regular enough occurrence that they do not automatically warrant an article. In this case no one died ... and the man is now in police custody getting help for mental health issues and being investigated to see if he can stand trial. This article is not worthy of a Encyclopedia article and should be deleted. Eja2k (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has little significance, poorly written, poorly cited, more sutable for wiki-news but does not need its own article. Perhaps merge some content with the Alberta WCB article if necessary but otherwise Delete. 99.232.105.15 (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. The two comments had not been copied across, so I've added them and re-listed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 19:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)*[reply]

Delete as utterly non-notable. No deaths, no injuries and the whole thing was over in half a day. How is is encyclopaedicaly worthy? Eddie.willers (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteworthy. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:27, 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. JForget 22:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveh Rezaei[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I believe this player fails WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't "competed at the fully professional level of a sport", and youth caps do not confer notability) and WP:GNG (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Giant Snowman 18:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please expand on why you believe that he fails the general notability guideline? I find it difficult to believe that you could have ascertained that in the eight minutes between my removal of the prod template and your addition of the AfD template. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have added three sources - one which mentions him in passing, and another which is in Persian but which is of such short length that I doubt its significance. A third is also in Persian, from the context looks to be an interview with the player, and also looks too short to be significant. Giant Snowman 19:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty more potential sources avaliable: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Let's see if we can someone with a better knowledge of Persian than I have involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He fails WP:ATHLETE, since he is only on the academy team of Foolad. Generally speaking, until he earns a cap for the first team (which is a notable team in a notable league) he remains non-notable. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If he really is the next Ali Daei then he should make an appearance soon and the page can be recreated then. Most of the sources just give him a passing mention and there's the typical "wonderkid" coverage. If he doesn't make an appearance soon then he isn't that notable, simple. Spiderone 19:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Putting WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG to one side we still have WP:ANYBIO, which says that a subject who "has received a notable award or honor" is notable. Rezaei received the Golden Boot award at a continent-wide tournament in the continent that contains 60% of the world's population. It seems that the usual suspects from WikiProject Football are coming in with the usual wikilawyering claims that someone who has played a minute of a game in the English League 2 is notable but an Asian player who received the continent's top award for his age group isn't. Can't we approach this with a bit of balance? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know if you're referring to me as a "usual suspect" that comes and engages in Wikilawyering but I only voted weak delete. I can see your point about the award. I'm currently on the fence as to whether or not I consider that the Golden Boot from this particular competition is notable enough. I may well change my vote. Let's all remember to assume good faith. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, I didn't word that too well, and didn't mean to include you, but I think it should be taken into account in weighing up the arguments that User:GiantSnowman and User:Spiderone have a record of regularly arguing from the letter of WP:ATHLETE rather than the spirit of all of the notability guidelines taken together, unless there is a British or Northern Irish player involved, and even more so when it is a non-European player. That also applies to several other editors who pop up at every discussion that is notified to WikiProject Football. I'm not failing to assume good faith, but merely pointing out why I think that these editors are mistaken in their good-faith approach to articles about footballers. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would second Cocytus' reminder to assume good faith. You have no knowledge of my, or anyone else's, !voting habits in deletion discussions, so please don't comment any further about them. I also don't like the accusations of pro-British bias. Please take a look at my list of articles created to see that I do, in fact, edit every aspect of world football. Secondly, winning an award at a youth tournament is, in my opinion, certainly not enough to count as "notable" under the WP:ANYBIO guideline. And the reason we use WP:ATHLETE as a primary guideline is purely because the person we are discussing is an athlete, and the crux of the matter is that an athlete who hasn't yet competed at a high enough level isn't an athlete, and therefore isn't notable. Not only does he fail ATHLETE, he also fails general notability guidelines, which I have noted in my nomination. Regards, Giant Snowman 21:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do have knowledge of your voting habits at AfD: I have read just about every AfD discussion that has taken place over the last year or two. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then you will be fully aware that I don't just vote "Delete, fails ATHLETE" on every AfD I discuss as you earlier implied. I take each article on a case by case basis. Giant Snowman 21:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. let's get back to the subject in hand. There are nearly 4 billion people in Asia. It's a reasonable assumption that about 2% of these are in Kaveh Rezaei's year group, so he was the top goalscorer at the top tournament for which about 80 million people are eligible. Can you really, hand on heart, say that you wouldn't automatically accept the top goalscorer in the Scottish Premier League as being notable, even though he has only had to compete with about 5 million people to get that honour? And, please, answer on the basis of the spirit of our guidelines, rather than the letter of WP:ATHLETE. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But 80million people didn't take part in the tournament, 368 did - quite a big difference. And going on your logic, if someone was to hold an award for 'Giantest Snowman', which all 6 billion people in the world are eligible for, and I won, would I then be notable enough for Wikipedia? Giant Snowman 21:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually every 16-year-old who plays football in Asia took part in the competition to get that award - the 368 are just the ones who got to the final stages. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's not quite true - the article states "He won the golden boot at the AFC U-16 Championship 2008 in which he scored 6 goals" - his award was for the final tournament only. Giant Snowman 22:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that we are talking about under 16s. How many people show lots of promise at this stage and then fail to make it into professional football? Quite a few I'd think. I was a promising badminton player when I was 12 but I never turned pro and so I fail WP:ATHLETE. Spiderone 22:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and when I was a wee bairn I won awards at tennis and squash...doesn't mean I'm worthy of an article, sob. Giant Snowman 22:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But were they continent-wide awards? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they were awards with more than 368 eligible people...Giant Snowman 22:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More than the 368 best players out of a pool of 80 million? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of 6 billion :) - oh, and the 80 million figure is false I would say - Asia has a population of 3.879billion, of which probably 2% MAX would be aged 15 or 16 & therefore eligible; that figure would then be more than halved again (gender divide), giving a pool of roughly 35 million I would estimate. Giant Snowman 22:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In much agreement with Cocytus. Until he actually plays a game for a the real team (it's a level 1 league, easily counting in any global region) WP:ATHLETE and the particular notability of the Wikipedia Football Project are't met. Unless he has a big-name promotional deal or other extremely special circumstances, this does have to go for now. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we could userfy this probably, since in my opinion this is a pretty borderline case. While I understand that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I think that this should be userfied in the likelihood that he crosses the threshold. Just my two cents. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to hold on to the thing and have any regular new sources for these things, sounds good, and I'll agree this is in some odd area since we'd need a very specific news item mentioning a promotion or one at least signed for I get the feeling that would be incredibly hard to find. What's in the article now is technically not factual but it also isn't completely wrong. I'm leaving myself on delete but I'd always rather an article be saved if possible. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What in the article do you consider to be "technically not factual"? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, being a top goalscorer in a Confederational youth tournament isn't really notable to pass WP:ANYBIO, especially at under-16 level. There are still six or seven tiers of youth levels above. I don't think that youth players in a Confed tournament recieving MVP/team of the tournament/golden boot awards should be deemed notable as they're not widely covered in the media. Most of the references would appear to fail WP:NTEMP and not pass solely on WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 20:47, 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 redirect to Chura. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basur[edit]

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

No references or sources, only one line of information, does not meet the notability guideline. Rory Reloaded 09:26, 23 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) 17:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Chura, which is the best alternative to deletion. Google News Archive and Google Books return few results that could be used to establish independent notability. However, I have been able to find this Google Books link (see the bottom of page 182), which confirms that Basúr is a subgroup of Khatik, which is an alternative name for Chuhra. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chura as per source found by Cunard. Note that the current (unsourced) article content contradicts that source, so there is nothing to merge, i.e., it is even ok to delete before creating the redirect. A sentence can be added to the Chura article, explaining that Basur is a sub-caste. Abecedare (talk) 04:02, 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 Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeton Kelmendi[edit]

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

Non-notable writer per WP:AUTHOR. Probably a cross-wiki spam, since the same article was created by Publicisti (talk · contribs) in several Wikipedias. It was deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese, several times from Wikipedia in Hebrew: [11], [12], Wikipedia in Tamil: [13] and Wikipedia in Bulgarian: [14]. Algébrico (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —Algébrico (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Algébrico (talk) 01:49, 16 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, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is maybe a cross-wiki spam, but there are several extensive articles related to Jeton Kelmendi. I found an interview at the website AlbaniaPress.com, another interview in the Gazeta Kritika, a profile at the website Istanbul Literary Review, two articles at the Letërsia Shqiptare website and finally an article in the online magazine Tribuna Shqiptare. I'm not sure with the reliability and independence of these sources, a help by Albanian editors would be useful. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sigh, another case of relist, relist, relist. If no policy-cited arguments can be found in 7 days for deletion, then default to keep. Lugnuts (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Lugnuts, let's move on. The relisting is too much. Jusda fax 21:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 22:16, 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 keep. No one endorsed deletion for three weeks JForget 22:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Carvell[edit]

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

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it.

PROD removed by editor with severe COI. Prod stated "vanity page, relatively unknown subject, not suitable for wikipedia article." 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC) tedder (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. COI is not a reason for deletion. Note this article from the Intelligencer Journal of Lancaster, PA (June 30, 2007): http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-9324079.html -- Eastmain (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As I see it, most of this subject's notability depends on just what is meant by "recognized four times by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences". The article could use cleanup to remove unverified/unverifiable personal details and other minor issues, but AfD is not cleanup. I suspect tracking down some 3rd party independent sources on the subject could easily get me to remove the 'weak' prefix to my vote. -Verdatum (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no source verifying that Mr. Carvell has been "recognized four times by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences." Also, IMDb, as well as other user-generated databases, is listed as a reference rather than as an "external link". Obviously anyone can edit these sites claiming that Mr. Carvell was a "production assistant" regardless of whether his name appears on the credit roles (doubtful: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000042/nest/49580333?d=49580333#49580333). In addition, the editor has referenced the same article twice: references #2 ("More than meets the eye.") and #5 ("Hollywood gets a taste of Lancaster.") They are word for word the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.109.87 (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine... we can pull the "recognized four times by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.", if you like... til I can find something to back that up. Since he wasn't a producer, but worked closely with them, he was given honorary Emmy certificates... not statuettes, for his contributions to those projects. And going by what some angry movie geeks on a message board with too much time on their hands have to say, is exactly what you would not approve as a reference... so you should also not go by it as a reason for deletion of this article either. Fair is fair. I did wonder why his profile vanished on IMDB there for a while. Now I know. Looks like they got him booted. Yes... he also works for PA-based Blue Ridge Communications (the mentioned cable company). He runs PA-based Flashpoint (where he's consulted on MANY of these projects... but not all... some are independent of Flashpoint) on the side. Big deal. Yes... he's gone by production advisor and consultant... both of which have been lumped under marketing at times... especially early on. Yes... he has a charitable organization... Flashpoint Fund... but it's not a non-profit foundation... it's a clearinghouse for other charities. He uses it to help raise funds and awareness for them. And no... not all of his projects have been hits... there have been several flops. Not that that is important. And he's not a "production assistant", as you say... he's a production advisor. And I fixed those references that you speak of, as well... yesterday. I was also planning to ad some information about his music career in the next week... and other works in the coming weeks, when I have time. Just putting out fires here as quickly as I can.

But if you're dead set on cutting this article, then by all means do so before I put any more time and effort into it, because I don't know what else I can do to please you. I cleaned up some wording to be more neatral. I've scoured the web for sources. I guess some look better than others, in your opinion. I simply don't have anymore fight left in me. Do what you will. Don-flashpoint (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability? So what basis exists or could reasonably exist for notability from intellectually independent verifiable sources? The one claim seems to have been overstated based on the above exhange even if reliable documentation of lessor claim could be found. If you typed something into google, what kind of hits do you want to see in response? Disguised ads and promotional pieces of neutral fact based references? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of these online references meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable secondary sources? We have IMDb, a personal website, and several others that appear to be either trivia or promotional sites. I doubt any of these maintain a rigorous degree of editorial oversight.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are four news references. Unfortunately, the two Lancaster Intelligencer Journal ones are just segments... as full articles are no longer available to view for free online... but you get the idea. Would you like me to also refernece newspaper articles and TV news stories in the form of a bibliography? Don-flashpoint (talk) 00:37, 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, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are now five news references. Don-flashpoint (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Way too much verbiage above. It needs reliable sources, and it still has a LOT of promotional language that needs to be cut out, assuming the topic is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please cite examples of the "too much verbiage" and the "promotional language" so that I might look at improving it, if possible? As for the "reliable sources", I already have five news sources... it doesn't get more reliable than news sources. And there will be more with additions to this article... sources that relate to these new additions. I'm new at this, so your constructive feedback is helpful.

Additionally... to the powers-that-be... if you're planning to cut this article, I hope that you do it soon. I would rather not continue to add sections to this article and additional sources... only to have it cut after all of that. It would be frustrating enough now as it is, with all of the time I've put into writing and researching online and over the phone already. Don-flashpoint (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed four of the references that don't seem to make any difference in the eyes of the admins when showing notability. Don-flashpoint (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added three newspaper sources. Don-flashpoint (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added one newspaper reference. Don-flashpoint (talk) 00:51, 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 Speedy close as a hoax. Articles were created solely by sockpuppets of a user previously blocked for the related hoax. The socks have been blocked. The mentioned articles will be Deleted and Salted. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strutt Family Trust[edit]

-- Nearly duplicate article added for closing admin. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is unclear whether this is notable as I am unable to find any reliable sources. Several sources are cited in the article, but they are either not specific enough, don't mention the subject of the article, or are press releases. I am also nominating The Strutt Family Trust(IT694/2002) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is an almost identical article. snigbrook (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete and Salt A non-notable trust. No reliable sources that discuss it in any detail, which isn't surprising given that the trust isn't really particularly large. Also, there seems to be a lot of socking going on here. Since this seems to keep getting created under a range of titles (4 at last count, some of which have been deleted), I'm asking this be heavily salted. Some of the oddness includes
- User:Aldeth_olive creator of The Strutt Family Trust (IT694/2002)
- User:BELPERDUVAL creator of The Strutt Family Trust(IT694/2002)
- User:Michelle De Waal creator of Stanley Ethelbert Strutt
- IP 194.230.146.43, a SPA whose only contribs are to add content to this (and related) articles.
- User:Mariana Gioribini, Milano, another SPA with interest in The Strutt Family Trust.
- User:Imran Ghovender Patel, another SPA with interest in The Strutt Family Trust.
- User:Boxedmusic, whose only edits are to remove Speedy tags from Strutt Family Trust and Stanley Ethelbert Strutt
- User:The Strutt Family Trust is a blocked sockpuppet of User:Montreux69, who according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montreux69/Archive, purpose was to insert Helen Anne Petrie. Guess who turns up several times in the sources mentioned in this article? The same lady. Weird. Either subtle socking or odd coincidence.
- An AfD of Helen Anne Petrie reveals similar issues.

There's more, which I'll try and add (although, as mentioned, some of the other articles have been deleted, so I can't get to the history). --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete The Strutt Family Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been added to this afd. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, SALT, and open a sockpuppet investigation. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montreux69/Archive, which indicates that the entire purpose of a bunch of previous SPAs, including a permablocked one called User:Strutt Family Trust, was to document the existence of one Helen Anne Petrie. This individual is the topic of reference #9 of the above-captioned article, which is a press release that could apparently have been uploaded by anyone; note that the small print at the bottom indicates that this is the subject of a complaint to the UK Press Complaints Commission, but my search of that site indicates no such complaint. The lawyer mentioned does seem to exist, although I'm unable to determine if the Zairean registry in which I found her name is open to additions by the general public. Note that there are a number of SPAs associated with this page and its associated redirects; this seems to be the same pattern as noted in the sockpuppet investigation linked above. As per the above, of the 9 references provided with this article, nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 are press releases, nos. 7 and 8 don't seem to mention the topic but a subsidiary, and no. 2 returns nothing of use. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another SPA, User:Mariana Gioribini, Milano, has just added some completely unrelated material about celebrity charities (which I've removed); I urge that any references added from now on by anyone be thoroughly assessed for their validity and quality. I'm expecting that there will be a number of other contributions by variously-named SPAs before we're through with this article. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete and Salt I have physically telephoned and checked, the lawyer in South Africa does exist there is a recorded complaint at the UK PCC. This can be a useful site that can expand nicely for charities. I am NOT another SPA with interest in The Strutt Family Trust

Mariana Gioribini, Milano (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the existence of a recorded complaint is relevant. The question is whether the trust is notable, which is established by multiple, independent, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. It's not clear what you're trying to assert. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete or SALT I do not have any interest in the trust, just an interesting page that can be expanded on to become a useful resource and platform for other charities and trusts and who are we to decide if something is notable or not ? In india we have had some imput from the trust, that is why I added my references. I think you are just being overly nasty, or against someone who is actually doing good with their fundsImran Ghovender Patel (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read up on what constitutes a SPA, which youBfiguraare blatantly accusing me and others of being. It seems that you are not adhering to the Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards CODE, boasting that you have deleted 20 000 profiles on your link.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imran Ghovender Patel (talk • contribs)

I'll AGF and assume this is a coincidence then. Although I'm curious to know where I've boasted that I've "deleted 20 000 profiles". Especially since I don't think I have 20,000 edits, much less deletions, especially given that I'm not an admin. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm the administrator to which reference is made here -- although it's more like 25,000, because I haven't updated that box in a while. I assume good faith wherever it's reasonable to do so, and recommend that policy to everyone. But since your account was created very recently and at this point in time has made no edits to any articles other than ones mentioned on this page, I stand by my definition of SPA. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also once again had a proper read through the page and done various google searches, the 2 named beneficiaries are elderly people, what would they stand to gain or loose, the gentleman is going on 77 years of age ? If there was a problem with any association I see mentioned to helen anne petrie I am sure that if this was a sockpuppet or worth of being salted there would not have been mention on her in the the controversey section.Mariana Gioribini, Milano (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology, i was referring to "Accounting4Taste"--Imran Ghovender Patel (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that this SPA has very recently tried to edit out references to sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montreux69/Archive, so I'll ask any admins concerned in this to have a good close look at the edit histories of everything concerned. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment'no need to delete or salt in my personal opinion, but what do I know ? I was the one who added the link for Mr Strutt as I believe that making more information available on this elderly gentleman can do no harm, especially as I am aware of certain activities of the trust. You claim, by your username to be “accounting 4 taste”. With all due respect, what is a tasteful thing to do is allow charities, foundations and trusts to receive the exposure they deserve, especially under todays financial climate, globally. Things may not be bad in Vancouver, however, have you ever been anywhere near the good work some people do ? Do you spondor projects feeding the hungry and homeless in South Africa and Zimbabwe or Rwanda ? So, before “throwing stones” at people, have a good look at your own glass house…. And think of those who do not even have that , BUT , with the generosity of people like Mr Strutt and many others, actually have a warm plate of food to eat… THAT, is ACCOUNTING FOR TASTE !--Michelle De Waal (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle, What else can anyone say ? IT IS WHAT IT IS, LIKE THE NAZI PARTY HERE. Wikipedia says it has 10,872,278 registered users, YET 1,691 administrators. There you have your answer. Taste seems to very rare, like respect or good manners.--Mariana Gioribini, Milano (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I thought this would have gone at the "speedy" stage - although the page creator kept removing the speedy (which I reverted). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE To whom this may be of interest. This may not be a notable trust to you, but to us here in South Africa it is,and a important 1. You all sit so far away and judge on us and on our Continents, without having any reason to do like this. I am NOT A SOCK PUPPET, I am not a puppet or a muppet of any kind, I am a qualified registered nurse that work voluntarily to assist in my free time to care for dying AIDS orphans and my name is Thandi Malekweni. We run AIDS ORPANAGE here near the Cape Town airport in South Africa. Mrs Strutt is one of our benefactors, indirectly via The Strutt Family Trust.She and MrStrutt come visit and hold the dying babies, they not need do this, they have many big houses and much money to do nothing, but they come to help us and many other charities, he is old and not drive very good, but he comes to bring his wife. Encouraging people to help us, and other dying children institutions was part of why I also added information, possibly duplicating things. In 7 months we will have 6 million people coming here for a great event, FIFA2010, but, 1 month later they will depart and everything will return to normal, but charities like us need every gift we can get and The Strutt Family Trust are one of our largest supporters. Your comments also relate to mention of a lady Anne Petrie. If bother to do google search PROPERLY, you will find that her Estate also helped our charity, she leave many millions in her will to Mixed Race nursing home. To delete this pages or the pages attached to it will not be nice for us or other charities the Trust Supports. I know that they assist needy pensioners, The Red Cross Childrens Hospital, the ONLY PROPER Chlidrens Hospital in the Southern Hemisphere and the patron of the hospital is Princes Anne of England. I used the username I know I would remember, of Aldeth olive. I hope that my making a comment will help you make up your mind. Thandi--Aldeth olive (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Huh. Funny, the only reliable source I can find on her is this one: [15] (times of london), which says "Both the Royal Collection and Bonhams, the London auctioneers, were hoodwinked over a painter called Helen Anne Petrie who may never have existed." No mention of charities. Interesting, no? --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montreux69 concerning the listed accounts. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers do not always just say good things if it does not meet with story they write. Also, when they have to make retraction they do not make that on internet. Here is 1 article from newspaper her in Southt Africa that shows they were not telling lie. When Madonna come take babies from Malawi what do they say ? She is good mother who can make good life for poor child OR she come to “buy” again a baby from poor people ? No ? No one is so stupid to believe everything they read in newspaper ? Mr. Bush and Blair say weapons of mass destruction , so , they make war. Sadam is killed Etc. but where are the “famous” weapons ? If you want be so narrow minded to believe in newspapers or everything in news then I am sorry for you because that is what news and newspapers do, especially if it will help to make extra 100 000 copies sell. Sunday Times say artist never existed, but she did, here, look, I not lie… like Sunday Times, e weeks after Sunday Times makes lies the truth comes out http://www.paarlpost.com/cgib/article?newsid=16027 --Aldeth olive (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is actually quite weird. If you look at the sources thrown up by a Google search, most are press releases or press release-type articles hosted on self-publishing sites and several of these almost look doctored to get the Trust's name in afterwards. For example, this one is supposedly about the Trust's investment in British American Tobacco, but the article is amateurish and the only mention of the Trust is in the title, where the words "Strutt Family Trust (IT694/2002) invests heavily in" have been tacked on to the beginning of the first sentence with no attempt even to adjust the grammar to make it read correctly. I can't find a single primary or secondary source that provides any concrete, authoritative information at all about this organisation, so by definition it fails WP:N. And the support above, which appears to boil down to "we want this article in order to provide a platform for charity fundraising", does not address doubts about notability or verifiability. The Times online article cited by Bfigural is the nearest you get to a solid source. Interesting that it's all about a hoax. Sockpuppet investigation probably a good idea. Ka renjc 21:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, throw away the key -- No sources that I can find look real. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This article fails WP:V because the existence of Strutt Family Trust cannot be verified by secondary sources. I agree with the sentiments expressed above that this is likely a hoax. Cunard (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. There are no reliable sources that show notability. That said, I find it extremely unlikely that a trust fund would ever meet our notability guidelines. I recognize that it's for a noble cause, but just that something is a noble cause does not mean that it belongs on Wikipedia - noble causes are not unto themselves notable. So then, if that's the case, it is up to the editors to prove to me - and in fact, everyone here - exactly how this meets WP:N. The above statements simply do not answer that question. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Augment to speedy delete. Going with spam. So tagged all. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, and wash the socks. Them From Space 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: The following accounts have been indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of User:Montreux69:
- Aldeth_olive (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Michelle De Waal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Mariana Gioribini, Milano (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Imran Ghovender Patel (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Boxedmusic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- BELPERDUVAL (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Lucinda Adams2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Also note that 194.230.146.43 is also the same but has not been blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montreux69. MuZemike 02:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Does this warrant a ((db-ban))? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed three sources from the article which were completely irrelevant, and the other sources remaining appear to be either mostly irrelevant or unreliable. If the supporters of this article want it kept, they need to find some independent reliable sources that actually discuss the subject in detail. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 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. Tone 21:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge

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

A page of this name was deleted twice before as db-spam. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide the reason why this page should be deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search yields no real media coverage, and most of what turns up are the typical Yellow Page-type listings. The article itself supplies no links indicating notability. Even within the references to "best law firm in XYZ practice area," a review of the listed website references is not clear that those rankings having been given (one site indicates that the firm is "recommended" but that others are "highly recommended; another site doesn't even list the firm). Even if the firm was #1 in Traverse City, etc, is that really grounds for meeting WP:N? I don't believe so. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would have been better if the nominator could have given a proper deletion rationale, but as he hasn't then I will say that this should be deleted for lack of notability. I would expect a truly notable American law firm established for nearly 70 years to come up with at least a paragraph or two of coverage in a Google Books search, but that search linked above doesn't come up with any more than directory listings. A lower standard of notability would be provided by Google News results, but even they, excluding court reports, which are primary sources, don't come up with any more than routine notices of appointments in Michigan Lawyers Weekly and other passing references in local newspapers. There's nothing here that could be called significant coverage of the firm itself. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 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. per WP:SNOW Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow without a head[edit]

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

Unsourced, suspected hoax per Wikipedia help desk Intelligentsium 16:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A likely hoax. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax. GlassCobra 18:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because such a thing can't be verified to exist; however, there's no evidence it was a deliberate hoax that should count against the original editor. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might have been intended to be funny. So it's an arrow without an arrowhead? "Hey Clenadis Excrementus, here's your award." "What is it, a stick?" "No, it's an arrow without a head, a symbol of our peaceful way of life." Mandsford (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checked google and google scholar and found nothing. I support deleting.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence to the effect of this ever actually existing. That said, I call hoax - Rome, to my understanding, was a pretty militant society. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable, and non-notable if it should be true. The only known "source" actually copied it from this article as I documented at the help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:08, 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 delete. If anyone is interested in merging, let me know. In fact, not much to merge, indeed. Tone 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruthless Roundtable[edit]

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

This is an non-notable Stable in professional wrestling, they've done nothing to establish notability Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 16:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —TJ Spyke 17:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antother possibility would be to redirect to Darren Matthews#ECW (2009) since Regal is the leader of this group. There is defently no need for a seperate article at this time though.--76.71.215.222 (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above comment. Get Dumb 04:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as previously stated, the stable is not independently notable of the individual wrestlers and is therefore best mentioned in their articles. Nikki♥311 20:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeper comment by the IP.--Dcheagle (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to merge actually.--WillC 03:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with WillC. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 11:15, 6 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 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore#Primary schools. Merge already completed by Cunard, nothing else to do here. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Francis of Assisi school[edit]

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

Catholic primary and middle school in Baltimore: it's not a high school, and no evidence that it's notable. All sources are self-published, so there's no good content to merge to the archdiocese article. Nyttend (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore, unless there's some type of national recognition. Mandsford (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would you merge? Nothing here is verified, so you'd simply be adding problematic content to that article. Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I was going to be adding anything to that article. Someone else can. Mandsford (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who adds it, unverified information would be added. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore#Primary schools per precedent. I have completed the merge with this source from the Daily Record. Cunard (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on that. I've thrown in the link to the school's website as a footnote. Merge completed, I've no problem if the article is deleted now, but we'll see whether anyone thinks that this should be kept as a separate page. Mandsford (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 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 speedy keep Withdrew nomination. No delete !votes. Non admin closure Polargeo (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Latham[edit]

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

Proposed deletion declined. Prod tag was as follows: Non notable entertainer / athlete - fails WP:ENT and WP:ATH as well as WP:N. Article creator has a conflict of interests as disclosed in his original post comments, and the WP:EL provided in this article took readers to a site which (among other things) sells books with this article's author listed first Polargeo (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps I'm missing something - seems to meet point one of WP:ENT. If not, please enlighten me as to why not. --Paularblaster 15:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No she does not. Take a closer look at what her roles actually were. Polargeo (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of 8 Krofftette's in The Brady Bunch Hour; Muse #2 in Xanadu; One of 18 Charkie's Water Ballet Performers in The Great Muppet Caper. She is a dancer, probably a very good one, but not on this evidence a notable one by wikipedia guidelines. Polargeo (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dancers are pretty crucial to films with dance sequences. She was also one out of four "Ding-a-ling Sisters" in at least one season of The Dean Martin Show - each of them each week not only dancing, but also singing, and interacting with the host; it looks to me as though that alone would meet WP:ENT. We have one reliable source already in the article, and signs of more being out there somewhere. A number of sources (this one, for instance) do seem to spell her name "Lynn", though, rather than "Lynne". --Paularblaster 01:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Please note that there is a notable screenwriter and producer called Lynn Latham, so we can't assume that search results found for that spelling in a TV context are about the dancer. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A caution that anybody reading this should surely bear in mind. This is why I restricted the search by adding "Dean Martin Show". And I'm pretty sure the "Lynn Latham" credited as Calliope in Xanadu is not Lynn Latham. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Thanks for the link. That now shows she was muse #2 out of 6 muses. Polargeo (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspission that the person who started the stub is her agent (see creation of article) (claim for other entertainer). The user has honestly expressed a conflict of interest. That is why I think it is our duty be particularly thorough on this one. I also disagree that being a member of a chorus/dancing line should automatically be regarded as a significant role in the context of confering notability on an individual. It might be different if she was playing an individually named character. We really need something to show that she is individually noteworthy. ~~If there are more notable Lynne Lathams or we have several confused together this could call for a disambig page. But if we are unable to determine which is which how can we verify the article?~~ Polargeo (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI would definitely want watching, but there's no very clear indication of it here (the person that wrote the article is citing his own book, which is borderline but not prohibited). --Paularblaster (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nomination Okay I think the Dean Martin thing covers it. She has significant coverage as an individual for this. Was obviously fancied by many people. Added in with many more minor (non notable) roles I think sufficient notability has been gained. Polargeo (talk) 09:48, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boulevard Street (Passaic, New Jersey)[edit]

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

Non-notable street [16]. --- Dough 48 72 14:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not all streets are deserving of articles, and this definitely isn't significant or notable enough to get one. Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable street. Warrah (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, no facts presented anyway. --Glantrischmozzle (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the creator of the article and was unaware of Wikipedia's notability standards for streets. I apologize for wasting everyone's time with this discussion. --Pink Bull (talk) 18:06, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clementine Mellor[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT , hardly anything in gnews [17]. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for clear failure of WP:ENT - come back in a few years when you've made the big time! Eddie.willers (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet the WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines yet. One of the parts listed on IMDB is clearly a bit part ("Girl in Cafe #1"), and while the part in 2:37 appears to be more significant (I don't know, I haven't seen the film), I don't think one role in an indie film is quite enough to meet the notability guideline. I was also unable to find any significant source material on Mellor herself, so this fails WP:N either way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:33, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yakitychat[edit]

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

New open source project - no notability. 15 google hits but nothing to establish notability. Just released and no indication that anyone uses it. noq (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article may be premature; if the software gains notability through coverage in reliable sources, or through widespread use (on the order of millions of documented users), then an article might be appropriate. But there is no evidence to show that the project currently meets our notability guidelines. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable (yet?). It may be interesting, even potentially successful, but that's not the criterion for acceptance as a Wikipedia article. Favonian (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - delete it by all means but it is a new protocol and a demonstration which is available to all bsd etc. Can you assure me I can work on the article offline until you people just wipe it? Seems really exclusive so far - wikipedia. I thought it was cool to contribute - I got about an hour into editing until you lot just say delete - seems ludicrous and mean. Give us at least a few days to shape up... How about some suggestions or questions to help, rather than a 'delete quick, this is not listed on google yet'... etc. thanks.

btw, there is a robot.txt that denies a google listing, we are using this on some API documents - cause google is misleading. Can you please stop judging people on google results - use your brains first, ie. read and understand the stuff, but then again - I will give up faster than you probably, satisfied? Questions / suggestions much preferred - thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealgeeves (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend not taking it so personally and overreacting. If you cannot do that at first, then none of us can help you. MuZemike 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/ Fair comment. But, perhaps an over reaction will at least communicate the notion that a group deciding to 'delete', before giving a fair go at editing, is intimidating and unhelpful. Personally, I have not seen any opinion based on anything other than google hits and 'debated' opinions about what 'meets our guidelines.'

So, I'll let it go now and come back when I have more time to contribute, cheers for your speedy response nevertheless. I should note that after taking this to my programmer community there was a significant amount of criticism of this wiki, and some pretty (unhelpful) comparisons to those that like to control contributions so vigorously. This seems revealing to me, although certainly my own opinion, but it is not just the English language version, so I presume it is likely a culture has sprung up inside wiki-p. I guess at some point there will be a notable entry describing the phenomenon that is the wiki-pedia self appointment to the contributors resistance committee, or thereabouts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.116.246.5 (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I accept all judgements, and agree with most of them for now. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.116.246.5 (talk) 13:27, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly Forest[edit]

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

This article is about a not-for-profit organisation which does not meet the inclusions guidelines for general notability or organisations. The activities appear to be local in scope and there is no significant coverage about them in reliable sources. The only mention I could find was this local story. Whpq (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is also written in an advertising/press release tone that's quite likely to have been prepared by the organization itself and therefore to also violate WP:COI. Which, of course, isn't a deletion reason in and of itself if there are valid sources out there to salvage the article with — but per Wphq that doesn't seem to be the case here. Ergo, delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the article is in fact a copy of material from the organisation's web site licensed as CC-by-SA and GFDL which is why the material is promotional. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that is not necessarily the case. Usually, to be sure, even if you give the subject gives permission properly, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. But sometimes it's just necessary to remove a little. And a really well-done " about us" can be NPOV and informative enough for the encyclopedia. Now , in this case quite a lot would need to be removed, so

Weak keep -- there is at least [18] -- assuming much of the content is rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see at least enough coverage to border on notability, although the article needs a serious rewrite in order to convey a neutral point of view. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thanks for adding some references. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:38, 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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Boyer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Signal (Film)

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

A user PRODDED this, but it's not a candidate as its been through AfD before. Originally deleted in a multiple AfD; it was then recreated with somewhat new content and survived another AfD, which was withdrawn by the nominator despite there being no sources. As it stands, the article fails BIO as there is no significant coverage of any kind. The most notable thing this actor has done is a recurring role on the web series Prom Queen. Also, he was in a few episodes of something called Co-Ed Confidential, which I presume is a children's program. Article created by a user who is clearly involved in promoting this and other minor actors. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article offers no proof of notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per meeting WP:ENT. The nominator explained that Boyer was in multiple productions, but did not explain how having significant roles in multiple notable productions (being in 24 episodes of Prom Queen and in 13 episodes of the Cinemax adult series Co-Ed Confidential) could possible fail WP:ENT. Sorry Cúchullain... these seem to bring him in. Since the first AfD in 2007, this person's career has not sat still. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what content is suitable to the actor's entry at Prom Queen, where the actor has his greatest notability. While his body of work grants him a notability through WP:ENT, there does not seem to be enough available yet to suport a BLP past a bare stub. This maintains the history and when the actor receives more press his article might then be recreated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If a merge is not suitable, then please note that I default back to a keep per applicable guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced article. Per Michael. Ikip (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Prom_Queen_(internet_series) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip Also contacted those who !voted in last AFD, including nominator. Ikip
Keep His filmography clearly makes him notable. He has appeared in enough notable series to pass the suggested guidelines at WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 02:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was mostly a procedural nom on my part, but the fact is that WP:V trumps the ENT guideline, and the only sources found so far are to a 2-sentence PR blurb on MovieTome, which is hardly a reliable source or evidence of substantial coverage. I did look for better sources myself, but came up with nothing. Remember that this is a BLP, which means that extra care is required. But even if real sources were found, I don't see how he passes ENT anyway; the guideline indicates that an actor should have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Boyer had a recurring role in one (passably) notable web series, but a appearances in a few episodes of a late-night adult TV series is not a "significant role", and nor are any of his other roles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to quibble too much, but let's look at WP:ENT's "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", shall we? His 24 episodes of Prom Queen and his 13 (more than just "a few") episodes of the Cinemax adult series Co-Ed Confidential, no matter what else he has or has not done, specifically meet WP:ENT's requirement for multiple and significant, and more specially as both series are notable per guideline, having their own articles within these pages. Meeting ENT is an assertion of notability and it is sourced. Yes, the article needs more work, but that calls for cleanup and expansion through normal editing.. not deletion. And out of curiosity, and with no disrespect intended... how is it that you presumed in your nomination that Co-Ed Confidential was a children's program? Was that meant to be tongue-in-cheek humour, or had you actually not checked before nominating? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I was just joking about Co-ed Confidential (unless children's programs have gotten considerably more interesting since I was a kid). But on a more serious note, the ENT guideline is necessarily somewhat subjective; my reading is that his work on the show is not a "significant role" in the sense intended by the guideline. But either way, the guideline can't trump policy, and WP:V is not subjective on this front. Unless reliable sources can be found, there is no choice but to delete. I did look for reliable sources, and found nothing: no relevant returns on Google News, and searches of film resources such as Variety and even Entertainment Weekly return nothing useful at all. The fact that he was involved with projects that are notable doesn't say much, notability is not inherited.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that he was not in in 24 episodes of Prom Queen and in 13 episodes of the Cinemax adult series Co-Ed Confidential? It seems those appearances met WP:V even before their deletion from the article (now returned). Or are you saying that you disgree that the shows are notable per guideline? Or is it that you do not feel that 24 episodes of one show and 13 of another do not equate to "multiple" as instructed by WP:ENT? And sorry, the essay WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply in this case, as your interpretation would put in in direct cnflict with WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't know how to be clearer with what I mean. I am saying that, no matter what roles the actor has had, if there are no "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" supporting it, the article doesn't pass V and that's that; it must be deleted. To quote the policy, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The shows themselves do not qualify as sources in this regard, and neither does the two-sentence, user-generated PR blurb from MovieTome. Even if the article passes one or more points of ENT, it must still be deleted if there are no such sources. The WP:BIO guideline, of which ENT is part, contains many caveats to this effect: "...meeting one or more [of the listed standards] does not guarantee that a subject should be included"; "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability"; "Primary sources [in this case the shows] may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". Etc. As to your question about ENT, I don't think his appearances on Co-Ed Confidential qualify as a "significant role", and so he has not appeared in multiple notable productions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The we use different math. To me, 24 of one and 13 of another is multiple. An actor is not brought back 13 times or 24 times if his contributions were not significant to the production. Once or twice might be arguable be non-significant... or if the character were unnamed background, I would agree.... but 13 and 24 times as a named character as a part of plot and storyline show the actor's part as a significant. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, but that's besides the more important verifiability issue. All we've got by way of sources is a two-sentence blurb on a questionably reliable film site. Hardly enough to make a bio out of.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now THAT is a cogent argument, thank you. Verifiability is not of issue since the actor's work may be sourced back to the project itself, and the provided source (iffy or not) at best simply confirms one little bare factoid in the article. The relevent question is, not whether or not his work meets WP:ENT... but where can we find sources to expand the stub beyond a name, a factoid and a list. It is not helpful to reduce an article to one-sentence so that others might not consider what it offers or have a reasonable basis for their own searches. It is not helpful to call a person's work insignificant in order to miminalize them in support of one's personal opinion, as such acts against the policies of NPOV and COI. But in appreciation and consideration for your well-reasoned conclusion, I can modify my keep to a delete-without-prejudice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Upon further reflection, I'll go with a merge without prejudice in recreation. See above Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BUT if a merge is unsuitable, I then default to a keep per guideline for stubs pr reasoning below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Questionably notable living person who might be offended by this bio. Hipocrite (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Hipocrite: I returned some of the information you deleted from the article. Your removal of the more notable parts of his career from the article (his 24 episodes of Prom Queen and his 13 episodes of the Cinemax adult series Co-Ed Confidential) left the article as one-sentence stub that might have been more offensive to the subject than the original article itself. His filmography may be sourced back to the films themselves and additional citations of those works is not required. So please refrain from deleting them from the article in the future. And yes, the article does need more work. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you did. Movietome is not a reliable source for anything, as it's all user-generated. This article is a BLP vio. Hipocrite (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movietome has not been shown as unreliable in context to what is being sourced. The article on Wikipedia does not bear out your assertion, as it states that user-content is not being accepted and has not been since 2006. The information about a 2009 series is not user generated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: whether roles in web/cable series meet WP:ENT is highly questionable (marginally-notable productions, no real indication of size of role). No significant third-party coverage (and the reliability of the sole source has been questioned on WP:RSN), so does not meet WP:GNG. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing a link to the RSN. Might you be able to support your claim by actually providing a link to the alleged question and the answer? That would be truly helpful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MichaelQSchmidt, I hadn't realised that going to WP:RSN & typing 'MovieTome' in the search box was beyond you. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Is MovieTome.com a reliable source or not?. I would note that Hipocrite above has also questioned its reliability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.... I found the question. However, I did not find any answer that supported your implication that it was unreliable. One can question anything at the RSN. Its the answer that matters. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt: I did not state that the question had been answered. In any case, this sole source does not provide "significant coverage", even if its reliability is endorsed (which seems unlikely -- it looks as dodgy as hell). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn: Better to simply state that the Movietome factoid is not enough upon which to expand a stub, than denigrate it as a source. THAT would be an argument upon which I would agree. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unnecessary and unproductive curtness aside, I think it would be more in line for you (Michael) to explain why you think MovieTome is reliable, not for us to reiterate why it's not. Burden of evidence and all that. As the site's content appears to be user-generated, it would fall under the self-published sources policy, which explains how such sources may be used. This is a case where the use is clearly inappropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To dispell misconceptions:

Movietome has not accepted user input of any kind since 2006 (see Movietome article). So information about a 2009 project could only have been placed there by Staff, since user-submission of information have been dis-allowed since 2006. Further, as an entity owned by CNET (see Movietome article) and the parent CBS Interactive (see domain whois), Movietome does not fall under the auspices of WP:SELFPUB. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Schmidt (no point in duplicating his points). — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it appears that MichaelQSchmidt has modified his opinion to delete, in the face of the verifiability issue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has he? That isn't clear to me. I can't find much out there about Andre Boyer, though I can confirm he has a significant role in Prom Queen. I covered Prom Queen for the anchor cove webseries forum back in 2007, though we only posted basic information on him.[19]. --Milowent (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he says above "in appreciation and consideration for your well-reasoned conclusion, I can modify my keep to a delete-without-prejudice". All recommendations, keep or delete, ought to comment on the verifiability and associated notability issues, as this is not a vote.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't see how many comments he had in here.--Milowent (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, and in light of User:Milowent's comment, I have switched to merge [20]. While yes, I believe the actor meets WP:ENT... there does not seem to be enough online to support the BLP past it being a rather bare stub. If User:Milowent might consider merging the information of this actor being the only minority lead in Prom Queen, and then perhaps setting a redirect, the history is preserved and at such time when more information on him is searchable, the article can be recreated without prejudice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I added that fact and the reference at the cast listing on Prom Queen (web series), in agreement with MichaelQSchmidt. Can I do the redirect while the AfD is pending though? I doubt this one will come out any other way.--Milowent (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not while in process... as it may still be a keep. While Wikipedia allows and actually encourages stubs, it seems that this AfD has attracted the interest of many who do not belive that stubs should be allowed to stay and grow... and I do believe the nomination was made with the best of good faith. If a merge of history is not acceptable, I wish the closer to note that I will then default back to a keep... based upon a conversation I began at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#WP:ENT, where it is pointed out that meeting ENT is actually an acceptable reason for allowing a stub to stay and grow as sources become available... and another at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Isn.27t_an_actor.27s_appearance_in_a_film_enough_to_show_he_was_IN_the_film.3F where it is agreed that the film's screen credits (even if the film is not posted online to watch) is acceptable to WP:Verify an actor's career. A keep is within line of policy and giudeline. A merge of history and a redirect removes the article temporarily but honors the GFDL. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devfarm Software[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS, prod removed by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devfarm's PowerWF studio is experiencing exponential growth in users with 1000 downloads for the month of October 2009 alone. PowerWF is being discussed regularly in the leading Powershell and PowerCLI blogs and the VMWare discussion forums. For these reasons, I believe the Devfarm and PowerWF information is notable and worth inclusion in Wikipedia.Mosquitoeater (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage. 1 hit in gnews [21]. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a visual scripting tool based on windows workflow foundation and leveraging Microsoft's PowerShell. PowerWF Studio leverages a number of 3rd Party Powershell tools including VMware's PowerCLI and VIX. OK, it leverages, but does it do anything? There is nothing here to suggest that this business or its products meets a baseline standard of importance, much less any historical or technical importance that would make it an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to does it do anything - I suggest you read Eric Siebert write up [22]. If you are interested solely in mainstream press coverage, I would recommend giving it until the end of the year, but it is getting significant traction with the high volume PowerShell and PowerCLI bloggers and power users(Luk Dekens, Eric Siebert, Carter Shanklin).Mosquitoeater (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Devfarm Software is as encyclopedic as several of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies_of_the_United_States Xcud (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC) — Xcud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please have a read of WP:OTHERSTUFF. MuffledThud (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devfarm Software's product PowerWF has been featured in entries on the VMWare VIX API blog and VMWare PowerCLI blogs several times. A Google search of the VMWare blogs for PowerWF returns 142 results; http://www.google.com/search?q=site:blogs.vmware.com+powerwf. PowerWF is referenced as a permanent link on the VMWare PowerCLI blog homepage (search for PowerWF). Coverage by a reliable source = coverage on the VMWare blogs (written by VMWare PMs)? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcud (talk • contribs) 04:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These blogs, in addition to being blogs, would appear to be pretty obviously media of "limited interest and circulation", unlikely to be read unless you have some kind of professional interest in VMWare, and not the sort of thing that can confer notability on a business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VMWare is limited interest!? Are you serious? VMWare is the 400 lb gorilla in the virtualization market, with twice the market share of Microsoft^[1] for a market that Microsoft desperately wants to own. 16% of all servers shipped are used for virtualization^[2].Mosquitoeater (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VMWare has wide interest for people involved in IT, but that doesn't mean that anything covered on blogs about VMWare is therefore also inherently notable to people involved in IT, much less the general population. MuffledThud (talk) 15:10, 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. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Olesini[edit]

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

Notability claim is primarily based on the PhD dissertation, which has four citations according to Google Scholar. Web search reveals nothing significant. In my opinion this does not meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. Favonian (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources giving substantial independent coverage are cited. A Google search provides memorial notices, listings pages, etc, but no significant coverage. Google Scholar superficially appears to indicate Olesini has been cited 4 times, but in fact the figure is 3, as one of those is in fact merely a citation to another work which cites Olesini. (Compare the article, which says Olesini "has been cited by many educators", but gives just three examples.) Google books lists one book by Olesini and one newsletter which mentions his name twice. We are not even beginning to approach the standard specified in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm looking, but I just don't see any compliance with WP:ACADEMIC. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for clear reasons above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 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 speedy deletion. (G12) -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth-adapted virus[edit]

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

This topic seems extremely fringe, and it is probably not deserving of it's own article. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick survey of the scientific literature doesn't look good. There are only six papers in PubMed which actually use the term "stealth-adapted virus", and they all have the same, single author: W.J. Martin. A broader search using "stealth virus" pulls just 25 hits, of which W.J. Martin is the (first, and usually only) author of 21. In the remaining four papers, it often appears that 'stealth virus' is either employed as a casually-selected nonce word (and not a specific term of art) or used to describe a virus which is still recognized by the adaptive immune system but which does not necessarily trigger the innate immune system (which seems to be a different definition from that used in our article).

The article on Wikipedia is primarily being used as a coatrack to support a fringe theory of the cause of autism. The terms "stealth-adapted virus" and "stealth virus" (which redirects to the same article) appear not to be broadly accepted within the scientific community, and certainly not in the way our article describes it. Consequently, ~~Delete~~. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Amended. See comment below..[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N, WP:V. Using Google Scholar/Books, I noticed the same thing as TenOfAllTrades found in PubMed, that "stealth-adapted virus" seems to be used only by the one author and that the broader term "stealth virus" appears in more sources, but it seems to be used in a descriptive way rather than as a term with a specific technical definition. Even if it turns out that there are enough sources for an article on the more general idea of "stealth virus", that article should not be developed starting with this page, because the two uses are different. By the way, a couple years ago, I merged a stub article under that other title ("stealth virus") to this page because there was a stub that duplicated the content about Martin's "stealth-adapted virus". At the time I added one source, figuring more sources would be found, but after two years no new sources have appeared, so it's time to delete. If it's deleted, the redirect should be deleted too. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Delete or rename to stealth virus. The ~~concept was described~~ expression can be found in a number of peer-reviewed publications, in particular in "A model for persistent infection with Epstein-Barr virus: The stealth virus of human B cells" by Thorley-Lawson DA, Babcock GJ Source: LIFE SCIENCES Volume: 65 Issue: 14 Pages: 1433-1453. Biophys (talk) 03:12, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Biophys, above. The concept described in Thorley-Lawson and Babcock is different from the concept described in our article and promoted primarily (possibly solely) by W.J. Martin. Martin's work (and our article derived therefrom) describes (putative) viruses which contain no immunogenic proteins, and which therefore provoke no immune response. Thorley-Lawson and Babcock, on the other hand, are not using 'stealth virus' as a new term of art with a specific biological meaning; it's just a nonce term they cooked up to give their review article a catchy title. (The word 'stealth' appears exactly twice in twenty-one pages: once in the title, and once in their conclusion. No attempt is made to create or refer to a specific biological definition, as it is understood that the virus is 'hiding' and therefore 'stealthy'.) T-L & B describe a virus that does produce immunogenic proteins, but which conceals itself by maintaining a latent population out of sight inside a relatively small number of quiescent B cells.

Unless someone can provide a reliable secondary source which presents a clear and broadly-accepted definition for what a 'stealth virus' is (as opposed to using the term as a one-off that sounds cool), this article still fails some combination of WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:COATRACK, and WP:FRINGE. The problems I observed in my original comment remain. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, any virus has immunogenic proteins.Biophys (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's one of the reasons why this article is absurd. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — copyvio. I have nominated this article as a G12 speedy deletion candidate. The original version of the article was an abridged copy & paste of this external site. Since then, changes have been primarily cosmetic: diff from article creation to just prior to AfD nomination. While any article on this topic is likely to be unsuitable for the reasons noted above, this version of the article should be speedy deleted as a copy & paste copyvio. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:00, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raccoo-oo-oon[edit]

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

Orphan article about band that doesn't seem to have released anything on a notable label, mostly cassettes and such. Geschichte (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - 2.4 million google hits. Since the band dissolved in 2008, it is not likely to become more notable with time. Racepacket (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm ... not sure what the 2.4 million google hits has to do w/the delete vote ...--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that Racepacket would rather delete, but the 2.4M hits make it a weak case --Glantrischmozzle (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's 220,000 when you exclude Wikipedia. Google's estimates are very buggy. • Anakin ^(talk) 05:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article cites Tiny Mix Tapes, Drowned in Sound, and, now, Allmusic, as well as other reviews. Significant press coverage. Chubbles (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Chubbles. Joe Chill (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the reviews of their work seem to nudge it into compliance with WP:N. Them From Space 23:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- observation re the reviews - at least two of those are dead links. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Chubbles.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are multiple reliable 3rd part sources. Notability is established. Suede67 (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BAND conditions do seem to have been fulfilled. --Glantrischmozzle (talk) 09:27, 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 keep. Keep !votes argue correctly that sources would exist to establish notability. Including them and problems with neutrality and sourcing can be addressed through editing. Regards So Why 10:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RTTS[edit]

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

Obvious advertising for a non-notable business. Article created by User:Bhayduk, named in the article as the proprietor (S-corporation); a fairly obvious conflict of interest, admitted on the talk page. Article is obvious advertising and favorably slanted in tone and attempts to claim inherited notability: RTTS has serviced Fortune 500 and small and medium sized businesses in many vertical markets including pharmaceuticals, banking, insurance, brokerage, health care, software vendors, government agencies, media, telecommunications, professional services, retail, higher education, transportation and entertainment...

"References" supplied are to Gartner, an investment analyst group producing reports on business investment opportunities, and a similar site. Their writ covers all businesses that can be invested in, and as such mention by them confers no notability at all. Google News Archives results suggest that their closest brush with notability was having a press release picked up by Forbes, whose byline says "PRNewswire". Given the advertising tone, notability is a side issue.

News results are difficult to interpret because of other uses of the term "RTTS". Note also that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomos Software is related and by the same author. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RTTS is a notable company, having a long history and lots of independent articles writen about it. Feel free to go the the web site where many articles are listed. Gartner is a well-known and respected information consulting firm. The article was written keeping a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhayduk (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep They may be a notable company, but the article does not show it very well & is somewhat promotional.. What does probably show it is the article in linux.com, which is not PR for them, and the one in Business Week. I do not consider either of them as products of public relations. Gartner is indeed well-respected, but I am unable to judge the nature of the discussion in their report. Tone is fixable, so the argument that the article should be deleted regardless of notability does not seem reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - About Gartner, the issue isn't so much whether they are independent or reliable --- for the sake of their business model I would hope they are --- but whether being the subject of a Gartner writeup confers notability. Their field is both too broad (their analysts apparently cover the entire IT field) and too narrow (in that they reach a relatively small reader base) to confer notability. The question is, "does being covered by Gartner turn a business into an encyclopedia subject?" Given the nature of their business, I don't think so. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it does imply just that. Their business is publishing reports on notable developments in their field. If they did reports on trivia, the readers would question both the value of the service, and the reliability of their judgment. They reach the appropriate reader base for the subjects they work on. There's no reason why a specialized service would not be a RS for notability in its specialty. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The business notability guideline says that local newspapers and other media of "limited interest and circulation" do not in themselves establish notability. Gartner's reports would not seem to reach an audience much wider than your typical hometown newspaper. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Gartner - As somebody who works in IT, has previously had acess to the Gartner service, and also knows somebody who writes as an analyst for Gartner, I'd like to comment on whether Gartner confers notability. Gartner provides services to customers, and will review and write about any company that one of their customers inquires about. As such, there isn't the editorial oversight in selection of topics that would give rise to notability. However, I absolutely would rely on Gartner as a reliable source for facts such as Acme Inc. is the leading vendor in mail-order anvils with a market share of 78%. So I would not rely on the existence of a Gartner report to establish notability, but the facts contained within may establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see WP:SPAM at play in the article, as it is written fairly NPOV, with nothing that really screams advertising or so slanted it can't be fixed. "WP:COI" does not seem to be cause for deletion; you may want to re-read the guideline. The notability seems to be established by awards. In particular, vokeinc.com focuses on "the application lifecycle." The Gartner mention is not a standard report on RTTS financials, but an award for a specific achievement. I hate bringing up Google in Wikipedia, but since you mention it, try searching for "outsourcing statistics" if that constitutes a notability claim. —AllanBz ✍ 21:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The Linux.com and Business Week articles certainly are reliable sources and would count towards notability, but together aren't enough to establish notability. If some other sources can be turned up it would be a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This ComputerWorld column by Jamie Eckle has a few column inches dedicated to an interview with the RTTS president/CEO, Bill Hayduk, I suppose as an authority on retention. I do not know where it would go in the article, but I think it germane to this discussion. --141.160.5.251 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The artilce doesn't really discuss RTTS so I don't see it supproting notability for RTTS. -- Whpq (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I have relisted this discussion to generate more discussion about the sources. The sources discussed are this article from Linux, this article from BusinessWeek (~~which does not mention the subject of this article~~), and this passing mention in a second BusinessWeek article. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The company is mentioned on the second page of the Business Week article. -- Whpq (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for providing that link. I've stricken out the incorrect statement I made. Cunard (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Borderline case for WP:N. Linux.com and two BusinessWeek cites seem good. Voke reference goes nowhere. In the history since the nomination, there seem to be good-faith efforts to clean up article by user Bhayduk since the nomination (especially vanity tone), without patrolling of reasonable edits from others. --Glantrischmozzle (talk) 09:56, 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 no consensus. While the BLP concerns are concerning, there isn't enough consensus here to allow those concerns to prevail. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While this list is well sourced, it violates the neutral point of view policy, and cannot be remedied by editing. When taken in isolation, each entry presents only the information that the individual is a criminal, rather than the balanced view that policy demands. I am also finding it difficult to see an encyclopedic purpose in this article.

This has twice been nominated for deletion in the past, with neither occasion finding a consensus, however I feel that the changing attitudes to BLP issues of late suggest that another debate is appropriate. Kevin (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as long as it remains fully sourced. Of course this list only presents the information that these people are criminals, you click on their name to get their full biographies. I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but does a list of best rookies give a balanced view of their careers? Does the (featured) list of F1 fatal accidents give a balanced view that they were generally very good drivers? Of course not, as that is not what qualified them to the list. As professional sportspeople are considered (like it or not) rolemodels and get paid accordingly, then information like this are notable to the general public, and lists like this become very useful in determining the truth - and not perpetuating myths.The-Pope (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disbarred lawyers, this list is unencyclopedic, lends undue weight to one aspect of a person's life; it's basically impossible to maintain a neutral POV. Also, given the nature of the subject, the references would need to be impeccable and everything would need to be extensively referenced - Alison ^❤ 10:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mr Pope, sportspeople will always have criminal records, also Wikipedia is not censorship. Donnie Park (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it has citations for every item in the list, which it does. Could use some help with properly formatting the citations, but that's not relevant to AFD. -Drdisque (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced and well defined. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I agree with Kevin and Alison, this is not neutral enough, and would require impeccable referencing for this article to not violate policy. It's not censoring to make sure that our articles follow the BLP policy; it's another list that isn't necessary to be included in the encyclopedia. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A helter-skelter list that throws in everything from perjury to tax evasion to murder. Beyond being professional athletes, these people and their offenses have very little in common. Warrah (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What makes this list notable? Why not a list of all sports players who own 3 or more houses? or perhaps all sports players who drive a Cadillac. Googlemeister (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Afd debates are not helped by such obvious fallacies. Since when were these characteristics ever considered comparable? If you just don't think its usefull, say so. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to quote my statement from the original AFD - 'Here are some web pages I found in three minutes on Google - [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. Would you like me to try twenty minutes?" I don't think you can find this kind of interest in the other intersections you mentioned. CitiCat^♫ 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should be deleting information because it can't be maintained (and this not because of some inherent vagueness in the information - people are either convicted or not, this is either referenced or not, but because people might miss vandalism, or don't have time to verify articles). I don't actually care if it is deleted or kept (beyond being more than pissed at always wasting time creating relevant and usefull categories that get deleted in 5 seconds, see next comment), but for the love of God, if it is kept, then we should resurrect the accompanying Category:Sportspeople convicted of a crime, which is uncoinicidentally at deletion review here). As for NPOV, like it or not, being convicted of a crime is a defining quality of a sportsperson, and the comparison and recollection of each case is always of public and media interest (100 and more views a day, even though its currently an orphan.). At the end of the day, if you cannot even find out how many footballers have been jailed for assault, then Wikipedia should not call itself a collection of the entire sum of human knowledge, it will never be anything more than supplemental to better sources. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Needs properly sourced and monitored for any potential BLP violations, but there's nothing with this article that regular attention can't handle.Umbralcorax (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The guidelines at WP:SALAT state that some lists may be unsuitable for inclusion, and goes on to mention the policy WP:NOT. In that policy in the section WP:NOTDIR criterion 6, it states that "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." This concept is further extended to categories, particularly with the guideline WP:OVERCAT in the subsection Trivial Intersection. As sportspeople gaining a criminal conviction does not represent a phenomenon of cultural significance and represents an intersection of two datasets that would otherwise be unrelated, the only logical choice is to delete. Many thanks, Gazi moff 21:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated datasets? Not culturally significant? Read any sports column after a major sportsperson is convicted of a crime, such as the recent Marlon King case. They almost always compare and contrast prior cases. Christ, in his trial his family was even reported to have screamed 'institutional racism' at the judge, because Steven Gerrard was let off. Other commentary of course mentions the case of Joey Barton. This is hardly a trivial intersection, we are not talking 'sportspeople who wear red shoes' here. You are taking OVERCAT to extremes, and while this might be your personal opinion, and you are most certainly not reflecting reliable sources or the real world. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, as I mentioned the key policy is WP:NOTDIR criterion 6, as I quoted above. To give an example, I could see a list of lawyers, judges or law enforcement individuals with a criminal conviction being valid as they are the intersection of two related datasets, namely those who adminnister the law and those who break it. I could also see a list of sportspeople banned from atheletics for drug taking or cheating to be valid, as sporting competition and cheating to achieve those results are two linked datasets. The problem starts when two unrelated datasets are linked together, such as the one nominated for deletion. The same could be applied of musicians, academics or other groups of notable individuals - creating similar articles for these would be against WP:NOTDIR criterion 6, as the two datasets are unrelated. That's not an extreme point of view, that's a logical interpretation of policy. Many thanks, Gazi moff 18:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, your interpetation of what is an unrelated dataset doesn't match the coverage by sources or interest in the real world. Disputing my point based on what you happen to think is unrelated is frankly quite irrelevant, you can hardly provide proof they aren't related if I asked you to show it, could you? Yet nobody would have any problem proving that this List is not the collation of unrelated data. Simply type 'footballers in prison' into Google [31] - the top two results show sources supporting the relation, from 2005 [32] and 2007 [33]. So if you think you are somehow upholding a core policy by eliminating this list as indiscriminate, you aren't, you are merely forcing people to use better information sources than Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing what may link an individual between two items, and linking the two datasets together The information you're stating is perfectly valid for an individual's biography and I would never suggest that it should be removed from there. What I am stating is that it's quite clear from WP:NOTDIR that this list is against policy as it's from two logically distinct datasets. The three articles are about a subset of sportspeople (all about footballers) which the media of some nations attach to a predisposition for criminality, and that can be recognised as culturally significant for Britain. But not all sportspeople are footballers, and this is why your selection of which datasets to link is quite important - if you wrote a list of footballers with criminal convictions and prefaced it with the information you've linked to, you'd probably be able to make it featured at some point. Hope this makes sense, Gazi moff 21:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot quite believe you are now arguing simultaneously that the whole list should be deleted, yet it could be split up into sports, and that one of them could even make it to FA. It's like nobody even wrote WP:PRESERVE with some of the logic behind some of these delete votes. MickMacNee (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? It's perfectly logical. It is regrettable that this isn't clear, despite the careful examples I've made. Then again, it may be that exposure to and manipulation of large quantities of data sets, together with a firm grounding in discrete mathematics, can give a different perspective on this. From a logical point of view, it's quite clear that this is a breach of policy. Many thanks, Gazi moff 23:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you think gives you the right to write such patronising bollocks, but if I was the sort of person who revealed personal info on Wikipdia, such as my education or professional qualifications, then (I hope) you would never have dared make such a stupid comment. MickMacNee (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per arguments above. Jevansen (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind sharing with us which arguments those are, based on established editing guidelines and policies? Many thanks, Gazi moff 01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a well-referenced and useful article. As it should be, the article is limited to actual convictions not mere charges. And the details of the crimes are neutrally presented.Cbl62 (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well-referenced, useful and neutral are none of them by themselves brightline keep criteria (read my reply to Jim Miller below for example) and basically equates to a WP:HARMLESS argument. Could you provide a stronger rationale? Zunaid 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OVERCAT. This is an obscure intersection of two unrelated criteria (being a sportsperson and being convicted of a crime). The one criteria completely does not relate to the other. The crimes listed here are not committed by these people in their capacity as sportspeople, nor is the crime more central to the person than the rest of their sporting career (at least, not on balance of the people listed here). A glance at the article clearly shows that a wide and disparate collection of individuals are being unnaturally "lumped together" into this list, which is a typical red flag that the categorisation is artificial and entirely inappropriate. As supporting arguments I would add that this list will ALWAYS be hopelessly incomplete (there are literally thousands of sporting codes around the world, and hundreds of crimes, both major and minor committed by the professionals taking part, again, in their PERSONAL capacity), and that no appropriate inclusion criteria are given, or can ever be given (e.g there is no definition of "serious" crime, a LOT of the people listed here are for drink driving, which is not even a criminal offense in all countries, never mind a "serious" one). Zunaid 12:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your central point of it being obscure is just not true in the real world, or in sources. Comparisons are constantly being made about, what is often, a career ending event. Problems with inclusion criteria, which can be fixed, is never a decent argument to bin entire List articles. I am frankly not happy that readers won't be allowed to see which footballers have been convicted of assault/affray, because you think its unfair that it currently also lists dunk driving. I would be more than happy to discuss whether there is a case to remove retired people, or trivial crimes, or whether the crime should be sports related, but frankly, none of that is a reason for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying but for the record I disagree with you completely. You'll need to convince me that the people in this list have had their "careers ended", and besides which that is not one of the defining criteria of the list itself. If we are going to list people whose careers have been ended by a conviction then that is a completely different list entirely. Also, I only brought up the inclusion criteria as a "supporting" argument (i.e. additional to the main thrust that I was getting at), my central argument still stands. If we restrict the list to crimes that were sports-related (e.g. doping, match fixing, Nancy Kerriganning the opposition), then once again, that is a completely different list, which IMHO has a MUCH more relevant intersection. So in any case this list still comes out looking like an arbitrary intersection. Basically your argument comes down to saying that THIS list is in fact arbitrary, and that you ACTUALLY support 2 different lists which are more relevant. Zunaid 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be a 'completely different' list. You are arguing to delete this article, when in actual fact, your argument is an argument to edit it. It is utterly unnacceptable to ask people to keep jumping through hoops to keep recreating slightly different lists from scratch because the version you happen to find it in at Afd is unnacceptable. The basic premise would be the same, some form of list of convicted sportspeople. MickMacNee (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you change the title of the list, then change the inclusion criteria, then change the content to suit the new criteria, how is that not a different list from the original? It is an admission that the original list was the wrong idea straight off the bat. At this point I actually think we are arguing for the SAME outcome, just two different sides of the same coin. Compromise position: can we agree that the best course of action is to split this list off into 2 lists as mentioned (people whose careers have conclusively ended because of a conviction and people who are convicted within the realms of their sport)? Since the titles of the new lists will be different, the argument over moving (and deleting the redirect) vs. cut-and-paste (and keeping the redirect) then becomes an editorial and GFDL issue. Thoughts? Zunaid 13:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footballer = Sportsperson. Sportsperson != Footballer. Welcome to Boolean algebra 101 Gazi moff 23:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above - I don't give a crap about your patronisation, and it certainly has got nothing to do with WP:PRESERVE, a part of our Editing Policy. Welcome to Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't buy the NPOV argument in this case. And as it is a widely covered topic, OVERCAT doesn't apply. Hobit (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How is this encyclopedic? Zunaid makes a particularly strong argument. These types of lists are not appropriate. Lara 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep impeccably referenced list, and I wouldn't see a NPOV problem even if "List of convicted criminals who played professional sports" was the name. I also do not agree with the OVERCAT argument. Being a convicted criminal is, whether we like the idea or not, a defining characteristic of many notable people. A recorded and sourced conviction does not violate WP:NPOV. Further, eliminating lists like this is contrary to WP:UNDUE by whitewashing relevant, factual, and sourced information from WP. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, no info whatsoever is being whitewashed. Everything is still there in the articles on the relevant people. Your arguments based on "impeccably referenced" and WP:UNDUE are in fact baseless. The list is not "impeccably referenced" at all, in fact most entries only have ONE reference per person. How can one reference be evidence of NPOV? As for your WP:UNDUE argument, it seems to me that HAVING this list in the first place skews the UNDUE weight in completely the opposite direction. Deleting it would in fact ACHIEVE balance, not upset it. Zunaid 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is utterly irrelevant. Eric Cantona won millions of awards (all similarly given weight by being denoted in various standalone lists), and is a screen actor. Yet his conviction for assualt will alway be in the top 5 of any defining characteristic recalled for him. Lesser talents like Joey Barton and Marlon King will never even get beyond their status as footballers fallen from grace as their defining characteristic. MickMacNee (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our own article on Cantona seems to disagree with you. If he were truly notable for being a criminal I would expect to see that in the lead, which it is not. This is a list of living people, so I do not remotely see how you can discard WP:NPOV as being irrelevant. I really don't feel that anyone editing BLPs should hold such an opinion. Kevin (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, you are wrongly assuming our article on Cantona is even remotely correct, which it isn't, unsurprisingly. Please do not assume that just because people don't want this List deleted, it doesn't mean they are utter idiots regarding BLP. MickMacNee (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One reference is all that should be needed. "On xx/xx/xxxx, article name was convicted of X by the court of Y." is a completely neutral statement. Can their be a differing opinion on such a fact? Is there going to be another source that contradicts the conviction? The facts of a criminal conviction, as stated by the court of appropriate jurisdiction, are just that - the facts. They are neutral automatically. Stating that such a convitction happened can only be seen as violating WP:UNDUE when it is used in such a way as to overemphasize it's importance in the article about a given subject. The existence of a criminal conviction is always an appropriate fact is presenting a complete picture of a person, but must be kept in proportion to the rest of the subjects notable activities in the article. The existence of this list neither conveys nor confers any opinion on the existence of these convictions, it merely acknowledges them. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zunaid. Useless non-encyclopedic list.--Staberinde (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to re-evaluate your definition of useless, because even though it is a backwater orphan article with no accompanying category, this list is still viewed over 100 times a day by readers, the only people as usual being screwed over by Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (from article creator) I have to say I don't even understand the reason for deletion listed here. NPOV does not mean you cannot list negative things about individuals. The entries in this list are sourced facts, not opinions. If the list was deleted based on NPOV you would certainly have to delete articles such as List of murderers by number of victims which clearly puts the list members in a negative light. If you want to argue that this is a trivial intersection, please see the previous deletion discussions for why that is clearly without any merit whatsoever. If you wish to argue that this type of article doesn't belong, then you should bring that up in a policy discussion not an AFD. CitiCat^♫ 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since most of the people on this list are not known primarily for their criminal activity, creating a list in which this activity is taken out of context is a violation of our policies on undue weight and biographies of living people. The list is also incomplete — just offhand, I can think of 2 baseball Hall of Famers who pleaded guilty to federal tax-related felonies who are not included in this list. (And no, I'm not going to add them.) *** Crotalus *** 15:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE would not apply, as this article is not meant to be biographical about any of the people discussed in it. For example, Nuremberg Trials does not discuss the other aspects of the lives of the men on trial. CitiCat^♫ 04:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the Nuremberg Trials were a historically significant series of events in and of themselves. This list is not; it's just a list. Furthermore, suggesting BLP doesn't apply because the list isn't literally a biography won't work neither especially considering the first line reads (their emphasis), "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page" - Alison ^❤ 05:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of a given event does not alter how a policy is applied. I used a well known example so most people reading this would know what I'm referring to without having to look it up. As to your second statement, I am talking about how undue emphasis, which is part of neutral point of view is applied, not BLP. I believe BLP policies are being followed, and you can see my statements on the subject above. CitiCat^♫ 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many others have already made the points I want to make. This is a non-notable intersection and puts far too much weight. . I don't think "it's popular" is a good argument against deletion. Greasy fast food is also popular. That doesn't make it a good choice for a nutritious dinner. You are always going to find someone who likes something. It's a basic fact of life. Kolindigo (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Is well-sourced. Notability is clear since the general problem that professional sports individuals give when they are convicted are are being bad role models is a common issue discussed frequently in the media. So claims that this is an intersection without good reason are incorrect. Given good sourcing here's no problem with BLP. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I'd say it's a fairly big BLP problem if we're listing subjects that were found guilty of assault but then acquitted alongside murderers, paedophiles and drug traffickers. This is far too indiscriminate an intersection of data, and only adds undue weight to the subject having a conviction in isolation of the rest of their biographical history. Gazi moff 23:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what? If they are acquitted then they aren't convicted. If you mean people convicted and then had it overturned then they aren't in a convicted state. One would presumably either a) not include them or b) include them with a note about the subsequent overturning of the conviction. Either would be BLP compliant although the first is preferable. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So let me get this right, you feel it's acceptable to have someone acquitted of assault being included in a list alongside murderers, rapists, paedophiles and drug traffickers, just because of their chosen profession? Gazi moff 10:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as discussed above.These crimes are extensively discussed in the papers including raking these up later when it happens again. This list is well sourced and fair to the sportsman in question since it includes a link to their full article. If any of these don't have a decent article then those can be deleted. The fact that this is an obscure cross categorisation is a reason why it is a list - not a category.filceolaire (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alison. Having been convicted of a crime and being a professional athlete is not a notable association. WP:BLP applies on all pages. This has been established in the past. If that wasn't the case then it could be gamed by creating articles like this one. Obviously that isn't going to work. What you need here is evidence that the theme of the page is notable. Simply gathering information and making a list like this isn't enough. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence of notability has been presented, and is already on this page. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ - Lots of analysis above, but the basic idea is that this is a cross-categorization that itself has only passing references. On top of that it opens up a wide field of permutations, and dimishes the encyclopedia. On the other side, this topic probably has been discussed, although its notability is questionable. There are substantial WP:NPOV concerns that weigh against inclusion, but on the other hand it has a very specific criteria of inclusion. I would be adamantly opposed to a list of accused athletes, but convicted is a much more reasonable criteria. I could be persuaded otherwise on the criteria I mention. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment below is persuasive to me. Shadowjams (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment There have been some claims that this is an arbitrary or non-notable intersection. I think those need to be addressed. Law and Business of the Sports Industries: Common Issues in Amateur and Professional Sports Vol. 2 by Robert C. Berry contains an entire chapter on the intersection of criminal law and sports. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology had a symposium on the intersection of criminal law and sports much of which focused on the primary issue of treatment of professional athletes who commit criminal acts. See here. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an encyclopedic topic that could be covered, but I don't imagine that the article would simply be a list. My main concern is the non-neutral presentation of each list entry, which a fleshed out article could alleviate. Kevin (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kevin on this one. While this would possibly support an article on the issue of criminality amongst sports athletes, I don't believe that it supports the generation of a list. Many thanks, Gazi moff 20:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that claims that this is an arbitrary intersection are incorrect. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then a list of actors who have been to rehab would be fine? Because there is a lot of media hype and actricles on that subject as well. Googlemeister (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Are you trying to claim nobody could ever write a credible neutral and adequately sourced article on the subject of 'celebrity rehab'? While I detest 'other stuff' arguments, since it has alread been used in here to justify deletion, it can also be equally used to justify a keep - other crap does not exist is not an argument. MickMacNee (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only difference would be that with a topic such as "rehab", the details wouldn't be as cut and dry as with this article. A person going into rehab would usually being entitled to a measure of privacy under the law as far as the actual details were concerned, and therefore it would be difficult to claim even with sourcing that everything in the article was correct. With criminal convictions the details are generally in the public record, and therefore could be put into an article with an expectation of being accurate. CitiCat^♫ 17:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Citicat, there are substantial differences between rehab and criminal convictions. There are other differences as well. The general problem of criminal behavior is much more discussed as connected to the issue of role models (see sources cited) than the general phenom of sports figures going to rehab. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While both of these examples might well be made into an article, neither article would simply be a list of the celeb/sportperson next to their misdeed. You would expect to see a degree of discussion of the overall phenomenon, with individual cases mentioned as examples within the prose. This list is not and never will be the article that may be appropriate here. Kevin (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? If there is anything guaranteed to prevent the creation of such articles, it is the continued disregarding of wp:preserve. If this list is deleted, I certainly am not going to bother coming near the topic ever again, be it to create an article or featured list, or to folow through with the odd suggestion that while the whole thing can be canned, portions of it based on specific sports could become FAs or FLAs in themselves. MickMacNee (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on WP:PRESERVE about the only thing I'd suggest is userifying, pulling out the relevant bits to create articles on the phenomenons talked about, such as footballers being arrested for violent behaviour or certain role-model groups becoming criminals, citing examples of the phenmenon itself. To have drunk drivers, and people convicted of assault (even aquitted) alongside murderers, drug traffickers and paedophiles does not sit well as a meaningful or useful intersect of data and definately goes against WP:BLP in that it shows the people in the list in a uniformly bad light without any reflection or balance on their achevements - it adds undue weight to the conviction as it's presented in isolation to each subject's full biography. I'm sorry to have to continually disagree with you, but the more I look at this list from a logic as well as a responsibility point of view, the only sensible thing we can do is remove it. WP:PRESERVE doesn't even enter into it - an article on the individual phenomena that this list may include elements of would be heavily substantial to a plain list of names, crimes and citations. Gazi moff 23:32, 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. overrulling the relistingas thi has been around two weeks already and we stilll don't have any reliable evidence what or where this place is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maf, Shamkir[edit]

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

Contents of article: Maf is a village in the Shamkir Rayon of Azerbaijan. It is suspected that this village has undergone a name change or no longer exists, as no Azerbaijani website mentions it under this name. No sources given other than this, nor could I find any in Google (granted, I don't understand Azerbaijani so that doesn't necessarily mean anything). Unless there's a policy that anything found on GEOnet Names Server is considered verified and notable by default, I'd say let's delete this. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~redirect per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 20:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 21:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the air photos, it looks like the settlement at the coordinates given in the article could more accurately be described as a district or neighbourhood of Şəmkir (spelled "Sämkir" on some maps). The usual practice for these types of places is to incorporate them in the article about the main settlement unless and until there is more than a stub amount of encyclopaedic coverage about them. So normally I would say to merge, but there is no content to merge and a question mark over the verifiability of the name, so this would not be appropriate. I am going to recommend therefore redirect to Şəmkir if the name can be verified, otherwise delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just opened it on google earth, I agree --UltraMagnus^speak 12:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@all: Just to be clear, when nominating this, I didn't mean to imply that no settlement exists at the coordinates given in the article (although I admit I didn't look it up on Google Earth). My point was that if the name doesn't exist, it shouldn't be used, not even for a redirect. Of course, if someone can come up with a good source for the name, that's another matter completely. But so far, no one has, so redirect is not an alternative. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Şəmkir per Thryduulf. GlassCobra 16:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- GlassCobra, note that Thryduulf's vote for the article in its current state is "delete", not "redirect". Musing about what to do with the article if it was expanded and properly sourced is a waste of time. Of course, if it was verified, expanded and well-written, we might even say "keep" or "nominate for FA". But this simply doesn't belong in an AfD discussion. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I've relisted this debate because none of the participants voting "keep" have verified that Maf, Shamkir exists and should be redirected to Şəmkir. Cunard (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep listed at GEOnames name server shows a reliable source indicating its (perhaps, now former) existence, what source indicates that it never did exist under this name as per nom? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my nom, I can't judge the reliability of GEOnames - if it's considered infallible by default, I stand corrected. Other than that, your statement is absurd: Sources have to be provided to demonstrate the existence, not the non-existence, of something. What source indicates that "Gjdflsvnsdftykvndriweol" never did exist? Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment searching for "Maf, Sämkir" and "Maf, Şəmkir" produces many hundreds of google hits. Most of these are auto-generated listings and so do not provide any information about the place, but repeating the same searches with "Maf" replaced with a string that is not the name of a settlement in Shamkir (e.g. "Präf") does not give the same results. I don't know where these sites get their database of names and coordinates from, but it is not impossible that it is also GEOnames. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "many hundreds of google hits"? Strange. I get exactly 14 for "Maf, Şəmkir" (all, without a single exception, on tixik.com) and 15 for "Maf, Sämkir" (all with automatically generated contents, like weather, prayer times and "Find Maf Samkir Azerbaijan Employment"). Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisted for the final time to generate discussion about whether the existence of Maf, Shamkir can be verified. Cunard (talk) 08:21, 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. Numerically, the keep and delete !votes are equal (counting the original PROD as a !vote in favor of deletion) but the arguments are in favor of deletion. Although this individual would be notable per WP:MUSICBIO #4 and #6 if the claims in the article were true (as argued in favor of keeping), the article completely lacks any reliable sources to verify those claims which has been correctly cited as a reason to delete the article. The !votes in favor of deletion correctly point this out and that per WP:V an article cannot be kept solely on the claim of notability. Regards So Why 10:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaymes Thorp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was PRODded as non-notable. Through the (incorrect) use of a hangon, this was effectively contested, so I'm bringing it to AfD for consideration. Ged UK 08:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am torn between whether or not to allow it. I believe that it could be contested either way. It does have 57,300 hits on Google, which makes me think that it could very well be notable. It does have several reliable sources, and it does have references, so I am inclined to say Weak keep at this point in time. Razor flame 09:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what reliable sources would they be? I certainly can't see any in the article or in the search results linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I didn't spend the time I normally do looking for sources, but a quick look turned up nothing. Sources in the article don't look good... Hobit (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Young - I have seen the current banner which has been displayed at the top of my article. I am of the understanding that references made in the article need to be clearly sourced. I am able to go through the article and create a stronger bibliography. Jaymes Thorp has been around on the internet for the past 6 years now and has generated a lot of media interest. I therefore felt a wiki page was necessary. Including this, he is also hosted on iTunes, HMV Stores in the UK and other downloading websites. His final album "The Best Of Jaymes Thorp" will be on Spotify in December 2009. I shall also reference, his myspace page, facebook group and youtube channel. I have tried best to report information back to the sources which I have located myself. As you previously said Jaymes Thorp is a major google and youtube hit. With many videos relating to Jaymes Thorp from Fans. I do believe Jaymes Thorp (a client of ours) deserves a location on the internet where true and just facts can be hosted. Numerous websites are hosting illegitimate information about Jaymes Thorp including a recent "death" notice which are simply untrue and therefore a wiki page seemed the logical solution to keeping his name and status in tack. (User Habbohotel1974, 12:59am 3rd November 2009)

Generated a lot of media interest. What we need is the references to this media interest. Youtube, myspace, facebook are self-promotion, not an indication of notability. (Copied to discussion page from talk page.)Ged UK 08:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep This is proving quite difficult in keeping an article I believe should remain. I do not know how to source google hits but 54,000 is a considerable about. The tag JAYMES THORP is a copyright name under Avalanche Records. If the powers of Wikipedia do not think that this public figure should have an article on their website, then that should be respected. I respect what ever outcome the judges of these procedures endure. Please do bare in mind this figure has released two albums that have made chart recognition in a list of countries. People do search for this person. People do buy and listen to this person. Also his Jaymes Thorp's third and final album is released this December in the shops. And is already appearing on internet stores for download: http://www.emusic.com/album/Jaymes-Thorp-The-Best-Of-Jaymes-Thorp-MP3-Download/11692208.html If you decided that this article should not be hosted. I respect your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.232.40 (talk) 23:34, 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. Redirect is a good suggestion however the suggested target does not mention this at all. As such, a redirect can be created if the article about the band or a new one about the person contains the term and is referenced. Currently it runs afoul of WP:NEO and thus is not a good redirect term. Regards So Why 09:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jung-ed[edit]

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

Made up word. WP:NEO applies. Author removed PROD. ttonyb (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Razor flame 09:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-expandable dictionary definition (of a made-up word). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Viral marketing, WP:MADEUP --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it is viral marketing, maybe it ought to be a sentence on the Jessica Jung page. Or rather the teeny tiny section of the Girls Generation page dealing with her. --Glantrischmozzle (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Girls' Generation. TJRC (talk) 03:09, 6 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 and redirect to Farmville murders. Consensus is clear (and supported by policy, i.e. WP:BLP1E) that the individual does not merit their own article. As such, the question is only merge or delete with merge being the option preferred by the policy in question. Since Farmville murders already contains the information of this article, the merge can be replaced by a redirect as a likely search term (which would have been the result of merging in the end). Regards So Why 09:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Samuel McCroskey[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BLP: The subject is only notable for his involvement in a murder investigation. The event itself probably does not have sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article; it is a fleeting news event. Even if it does, the subject is charged, not convicted, and should have his privacy respected. Danger (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly notable. Klassikkomies (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that number of Google hits is explicitly listed as a notability argument to avoid. This may be helpful to keep in mind for future AfDs. --Danger (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This is exactly the kind of article that the WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS policies are designed to exclude. The only possible justification for an article would be if we had sources dating from before these murders establishing notability as a rapper and/or graphic designer, but I somehow doubt that any such sources will be forthcoming. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Farmville murders as a WP:BLP1E. He has become 'notable' due to his connection with these murders (he's now been charged, not just arrested), but as a person only notable for one event, I'm not yet convinced he needs a separate article. Everything in this article can be covered as a subsection of the main article on the murders. Robofish (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I overlooked the main article on the Farmville murders before nominating. With this new information, I now support a merge of useful content. Danger (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is as clear a case of WP:BLP1E as I have seen. Kevin (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge of course as there is a valid target. The two !voters above provided no reason to not merge as BLP1E specifically suggests having an article on the larger topic. Hobit (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had the article that already exists about the event not had a substantial paragraph on this individual already, I would have suggested a merge. Kevin (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirects work too then, yes? No need to delete that I can see. Hobit (talk) 05:58, 6 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, request withdrawn by nom. J04n(talk page) 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bataka Squad[edit]

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

~~Non Notable Group, no sources and google search only came up with a myspace and their website~~. SKATER ^Speak. 05:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination at the sources found.--SKATER ^Speak. 01:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 07:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, might even qualify for speedy as A7, article about a musical group that does not assert notability. BlazerKnight (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, after some expansion, there is some assertion of notability in the article. It can now be kept. BlazerKnight (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It didn't take a minute to google up an article by New Vision that proves the notability of this group [34] Julius Sahara (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed. See also East African Hip Hop: Youth Culture and Globalization By Mwenda Ntarangwi, etc. Meets category 1 of WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 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. So Why 09:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naïve liberalism[edit]

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

Article is purely original research and unsourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. its been here 5 years, no references, no indication that this phrase is used at all (i am aware that liberals of some stripes have been called naive, but i was not aware of this phrase being used as a stock descriptor with an understood meaning as given here). i think weve given advocates for the "article" enough time to expand it.oh, and i couldnt find any decent references myself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntler (talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that naive isn't simply an adjective used occasionally to describe individual liberals or liberal positions. Declan Clam (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Used in scholarly publications - hence not simple adjective usage. Try among others [35] [36] [37] and so on. [38] for international usage. ~~[39] used for a forum name to discuss the topic.~~ (wrong link deleted) used as a specific phrase in a scholarly journal from Oxford. Should be sufficient to establish notability of the term. Collect (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of that shows that naive is used in any other sense than as an adjective. As for the Naïve liberalism Message Board, it says: There are no entries in Naïve liberalism forum. Become the first person to post messages in this forum by using the form below! The Four Deuces (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best a neologism, the uses shown are adjectival, there are no sources in the current article and i can find no scholarly, reliable source discussion of this term anywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bali, WP:NEO, lack of WP:RS. Verbal chat 18:43, 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 merge to Miley Cyrus. Consensus is clearly that a separate article is not warranted for the tours but also that the information should be included somewhere, preferably in the main article for the subject. As such, a merge to it is agreed here to be a viable option to deal with the article. Regards So Why 08:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miley Cyrus concert tours[edit]

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

Delete, a list of tours is not needed for someone who has only been on three tours. Chasewc91 (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'll play devil's advocate here and say keep it. The page is just going to be created somewhere down the line. It's well cited and organized. It also keeps the size of the Miley Cyrus article down in size.andyzweb (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 07:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Clearly her tours are notable and covered by numerous third-party reliable sources. However, I must agree with Chasewc91 that a page isn't needed to list her three tours. Each tour already has its own page, if they didn't I would have !voted keep. J04n(talk page) 13:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant to say, a list of tours where each one has its own page. If none of them had their own page and had to be combined into this article, I wouldn't have nominated it. Chasewc91 (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do see you points. I didn't make the article, at first it was Miley Cyrus tours which described Wonder World Tour because it didn't have an article. Now that it has an article someone else made it into a list with no references and weak prose. I then revamped it to meet some of the criteria. Anyways, I think it should be kept because the article is well sourced, has an image, has significant prose, and can just help anyone who's not looking for an exact tour. Just her tours overall. I seem to recall someone mentioning all tours had their own pages, and that is wrong. The Party's Just Begun Tour is inside The Cheetah Girls tours. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is well-cited and has decent prose. However, having an image does not give it any more of a reason to keep it. I see your point on this article possibly helping someone find simply a list of her tours without a lot of meaty prose, but doesn't Category:Miley Cyrus concert tours serve the exact same purpose? I applaud your work on this article; I haven't seen the original version of this, but the current version definitely looks decent. However, I don't think we need this article. Cyrus has only been on three concert tours; a bulleted list could very easily be added to Miley Cyrus#Tours. Chasewc91 (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I see your point. Once she has gone on multiple tours, about six or seven, I'll re-create it. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree that it is well cited and organized, but for only being on 2 or 3 tours, an article is not needed to list them. Ckulas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, there are so few they could just be mentioned in the main biographical article. This will probably look very odd in two years time.--SabreBD (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP --Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We use consensus, not voting. Would you care to give reasons why this article should be kept? Chase wc ⁹¹ 08:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, content to be merged with Miley Cyrus. Non-noatable as a list also. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I organized it, but even I know that this doesn't deserve its own article because Cyrus is barely by her second tour. Delete, once she has gone on a considerable amount of tours, it will be re-created. I previously said keep, but I changed my mind. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I striked out your original keep vote. Next time, when changing your vote, please do this so that the consensus is more clear to the closing admin. Thanks. Chase wc ⁹¹ 22:02, 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 merge to Tom Meents. Clear consensus that a separate article is not warranted but that the information can be included in the main article. So Why 08:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Meents Monster Jam World Finals Winning Streak[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate what is notable or significant about this feat, also far too unencyclopedic to warrant its own page Donnie Park (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tom Meents assuming that it can be sourced as the current article has none. In the alternative, delete. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 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) 05:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge per Whpq, or as a second choice just delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article seems to stem from a single fact (that he had a winning streak). That's not notable enough for a separate article. • Anakin ^(talk) 05:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any verifiable content to Tom Meents -Drdisque (talk) 03:15, 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. So Why 07:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National liberalism[edit]

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

Although various political parties have been called the National Liberal Party there is no ideology of national liberalism. The article is original research that synthesizes information about various political parties to describe a new subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 07:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose and not just because I was the one who started the article: in fact the article was much smaller then and has been expanded by several other users, mostly IPs. En.Wiki has plenty of articles about sub-ideologies (see Category:Political ideologies) and many branches of liberalism (see Category:Liberalism), if we delete this one many others will follow soon. National liberalism is a historical brand of liberalism typical of some German-speaking countries, but the term has been used also recently. Moreover the article includes plenty of sources. I don't see why should we delete this article, the issue clearly deserves an article in en.Wiki. --Checco (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose; I'm not completely sure it's a coherent ideology, but there certainly are parties that are nationalist and liberal. —Nightstallion 10:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack sufficient showing that the term is "national liberalism" vs. "liberal nationalism" vs. something else. Needs more sources to establish that this is real and widely accepted as existing. Racepacket (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: national liberalism deserves its own En.wiki article as equally as the many other sub-ideologies with have articles. Note that academic sources are used to reference the article, so it is not an unfounded topic for am encyclopaedic entry. --Autospark (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Actually none of the sources discuss national liberalism and I have been unable to find any. You could help improve the article by finding a source showing that any such ideology exists. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To find sources on national liberalism, might I suggest clicking on the google books and google scholar links towards the top of the AfD? --Paularblaster 22:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep. As previously brought up google scholar brings up a wealth of information. I used some of it to write a paragraph addressing Racepacket's valid concern over a lack of differentiation between it and liberal nationalism. J04n(talk page) 12:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historically relevant (e.g. 1848 revolutions, connections liberalism-nationalism need to be treated). Wikipedia has articles on Green libertarianism etc., we surely need that one, too. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term "national liberalism" does not appear in De Ruggiero's The History of European Liberalism[40], the first major work on liberal history, and more recent historians like Anthony Arblaster (The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism[41]) or James L. Richardson (Contending liberalisms in world politics[42]) do not mention it either. There are no other sources that define the term. I have been unable to find any definition of the concept in any sources and ask that anyone who wants to keep the article provide a source for it. (Liberal nationalism by the way already has its own article.) The Four Deuces (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For any topic that you care to mention it would be possible to find some books that don't mention it. Those books are irrelevant to the discussion - what matters it that there are plenty of other reliable sources that do mention it, as shown by sources in the article and others found by the Google Books (including some that mention it so much that it's in the title) and Google Scholar searches linked above, which for the most part use this term in the meaning used by our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The books in the link are about the National Liberal Party (Germany). It already has its own article. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Google Books and Google Scholar links listed at the top of this discussion you will see that many of them discuss the political philosophy of national liberalism with reference to dates before 1867, which is when the German party was founded, so they are not only about this one party. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if someone could explain what it was, give an example of a proponent and recommend an authority on the subject. The article fails to do this. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are questions for the article talk page rather that for an AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did bring it up on the talk page. Unfortunately no one seems to know what national liberalism is. That is by the way the whole point of the AfD - that there should not be articles about concepts that no one can define or find sources for. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No sound reason for deletion. Article is sourced and on a notable topic. googlebooks has 735 cites for the precise phrase. NYT solidly backs use of the term per [43] [44] etc. placing it as clearly used contemproaneously. [45] etc. show scholarly usage. Collect (talk) 14:25, 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) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissie fit[edit]

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

Nonnotable actress. Per IMDB and zero Gnews (incl. archive) hit. Google did not return any usable sources. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. Tim Song (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Like the nominator, I have been unable to find any valid sources on Google or Google News Archive. This article should be deleted per WP:N and WP:V because the information in the article is unsourced and will remain unsourced due to the lack of sources, and WP:BLP because an unsourceable BLP may lead to the presence of false/harmful content that will harm the subject of the article. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - patent nonsense or other mischief. the Chrissie Fit listed at imdb.com has a birth-date listed as April 1984. WTF? Eddie.willers (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed that. Tim Song (talk) 23:22, 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) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Gettys[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE. Working at Edwards does not equal notability. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided, and the biography does not clearly indicate notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, fails notability requirements, fails this. Razor flame 09:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm not finding evidence of notability, here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:01, 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 keep. Per WP:SK. Nominator now desires merging, which can and should be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nagaruban Arumugam[edit]

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

All media coverage is concerning his death; doesn't seem notable for any activities prior; WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Josh Parris 03:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr. Nagaruban Arumugam's death drew a wide ranging media coverage because of his service and lige -a life worthy of a mention in Australian parliament. His services to the rural communities in Australia were only documented after his death. It does not make is any less important.140.168.69.130 (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, he's just another run-of-the WP:MILL paediatrician. Josh Parris 05:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that people wouldn't quote that essay as if it had any relevance to deletion policy. This is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records or the National Enquirer, so there is no reason why we should only have articles about the exceptional or the sensational. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs improvement, but enough sources to establish notability. Racepacket (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A "run-of-the-mill" pediatrician would not have received an honorable mention in the parliament and in the editorial of a leading news paper. While many self-serving run-of-the-mill celebrities get pages in Wiki, such true servants of the people should definitely be included.124.170.64.226 (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Medical resident work hours; his death served to refocus attention on the extraordinarily long working hours of Australian doctors, which is why it got all the attention it did. But other than dying, I can't find any references of him doing anything WP:notable. Josh Parris 23:05, 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. More recent and updated posts seem to sway consensus towards the "keep" side. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything (software)[edit]

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

No credible assertion of notability nor non-trivial significant coverage found. The only references listed are forum posts. (Also written by COI author) Triplestop x3 03:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 04:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find reliable sources for this. Crafty (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crafty. -- ISLANDERS27 09:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The author of the article, Yappy2bhere (talk · contribs) has stated here that he has no connection with the author of the software, David Carpenter. I'd recommend striking the COI comment. The sole issue here should be notability. Since the article author has only been editing here for a couple of weeks, perhaps it would be prudent to give him time to assemble sources addressing that issue, as he is seemingly only just coming to terms with how Wikipedia denotes notability. --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no showing of minimal technical or historical importance. Referenced only to forums. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep: Per Lifehacker, PCWorld, and Refolder. Joe Chill (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find sources either. RexxS, assuming this AfD doesn't get closed per WP:SNOW or any other early closure there is a full week to find sources. Even if the article is deleted, Yappy2bhere can request that the article be copied to a subpage of their user space to work on it. If sources can be found then the article should be recreated, as an AfD doesn't normally prevent recreation if the recreated article is substantially different and satisfies the concerns raised in the discussion that led to its deletion. (Finding sources showing notability would certainly qualify.) -- Atama頭 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me then how the articles on 7-Zip, sed, XYplorer, FreeOTFE, and Mp3tag, to name a few, are notable. They all appear to fail by the standards you invoke. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've commented on the above at Yappy2bhere's talk page. I trust nobody will WP:BITE him here. --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using Joe Chill's edit of Mp3tag as a model, I've added a "Reviews" section with five glowing name-brand reviews, including a "top 10" and "top 25" pick in minor but relevant categories, and cited Wakoopa's ranking placing Everything above WinZip in usage. I've emended the hated forum citations to name the application developer, as appropriate, and link directly to the intended post instead of to the page containing it. Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd urge the early voters to see the progress made in demonstrating notability over the last 24 hours. The references have been broadened as well. At present, I think that notability has just about been shown, and given that Yappy2bhere is learning quickly what is required, I'd give the article the benefit of the doubt. Just as a "delete" does not preclude recreation, a "keep" for the moment does not preclude a further review in the future. The following may not be a consideration for the closer, but I'd add that the encyclopedia benefits most from encouraging new contributors and guiding them in how to write good articles; deleting a new editor's first efforts in a borderline case does much to set that back. --RexxS (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are all still sources that don't demonstrate notability through significant coverage or are unreliable blog/ forum posts. Triplestop x3 22:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking principally of the "Review" section links to (1) a review by an associate editor of ZDNet and (2) a review by a staff writer at PCWorld - both are respectable consumer IT magazines (although they are using a blog format, those are editorial pieces). These are a cut above unmoderated blogs by anons and self-published info. Maybe it's not enough, but I don't think those two, in particular, can be dismissed as insignificant or unreliable blog posts. YMMV --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the third-party sources aren't exactly in-depth, but I think they are reasonably reliable and there are enough of them to (just about) demonstrate notability. Robofish (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominators assertion that 'written by COI author' is false. The whole nomination seems to have stemed from that mistake. I request the nominator amend the nomination accordingly. On the subject of notability the PC World review and the Lifehacker review is enough. SunCreator (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established for this software.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GB fan (talk • contribs) 19:22, 1 November 2009
Keep The notability of the topic is well established by the numerous reviews. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Joe Chill. (Joe, it is good to be on your side for once) - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:37, 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. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Kilgour[edit]

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

Contested Prod with Conflict of Interest. No demonstration of notability in that being a rugby manager is not notable, and no independent coverage that he is the subject of. (He gets quoted a few times in news stories and most of the rest is self-published). dramatic (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nom. Notability not demonstrated by significant coverage multiple independent reliable sources. A few mentions don't cut it. Also due to the conflict of interest concerns. Adambro (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Buckshot06(prof) 08:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Quite possibly notable, not no evidence of it here. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:03, 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 speedy deleted as copyright violation PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis McSwain, Jr.[edit]

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

Article reads like a short news blurb for a non-notable person... fails WP:BIO and/or WP:NOTNEWS... Adolphus79 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copyvio. Gonna speedy it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Righty-o... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:15, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Gill (economist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously nominated and kept as no consensus, this assistant professor has a single digit h-index, and has done nothing remarkable. The article says he has made a "significant contribution" to whatever, then links to his school's PR office. Abductive (reasoning) 02:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 04:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 04:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- only the THE article gives anything like extensive coverage, and since there is nothing else and citation figures are so low, he fails WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ISLANDERS27 09:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:PROF Racepacket (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nomoskedasticity's arguments – the claims in the article over-reach. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy WP:PROF. His page at IDEAS contains only 4 peer-reviewed papers. CronopioFlotante (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROF is not met. Warrah (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Nomoskedasticity. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:38, 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 Gazi moff 08:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoDigital Media Group[edit]

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

Don't have any care if this is deleted or not, but it's been proposed for speedy three times and prodded once, so I thought AfD would be a better venue. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 04:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 04:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This has potential to be notable. -- ISLANDERS27 09:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a speedy tag because I think the article at least asserts notability. Many of the references are press releases and such. These are what I found that might show notability: [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. Enough? I don't know really.--Apoc2400 (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete those links merely prove that the subject exists, not that it is particularly notable -Drdisque (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GoDigital Marketing Services focuses on Online PR and viral and interactive campaigns, and something highly unusual needs to happen before any business of this sort becomes an encyclopedia subject. The collection of press releases and self-published sources seem rather lawyerly, and do not at all establish the notability of the business. Of the two sources found by Google News, one is an offhand mention in an article about an entertainer they represent, and the other a puff piece about twenty-something proprietors. Neither of these really establish that this business has done anything historically important. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable company, no significant coverage, should have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 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 keep. This is a lengthy discussion during which the article was changed significantly through editing (this was the state when it was nominated). The delete !votes argue based on a low prominence of the subject in scientific circles leading to failing WP:PROF, the relevant notability guideline. The keep !votes argue that "significant impact" as described in said guideline is highly subjective and needs to be considered in a context of the science of the academic in question. As demonstrated by those in favor of keeping the article, the subject in question seems to be a respected expert on the particular subject of their studies and has been referenced as such both in scientific and other reliable sources (the number of citations alone cannot be sufficient to determine the impact of their work (just like the Google test isn't) precisely because the number of citations is determined by the "size" of the field of science and this has been argued correctly by those in favor of keeping the article). This combined with the coverage in reliable sources like the BBC establishes that the subject is indeed notable enough to pass both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Regards So Why 07:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Warrick[edit]

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

Assistant professor who "has two papers published in Nature on bird flight. I don't think he is different from the 2 million or so other professors who are just doing their jobs. Abductive (reasoning) 02:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr. Warrick was cited by the BBC and Seattle Times [51] plus Scientific American [52] and Science News [53]. He is a prominent zoologist. Plus, the article is correctly referenced. Warrah (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say the article was incorrectly referenced. Abductive (reasoning) 03:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expanded the text to detail the nature of Dr. Warrick's research, and to add the aforementioned international coverage that it received when it was first announced in 2005. The original article did Dr. Warrick a disservice by not explaining why his research concluded. Warrah (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 04:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 04:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient record/impact to pass WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is to be kept his notability needs to be properly established. Appearing in the press and having two Nature papers is not enough, at least not on its own. Is there some work that he's done that has significantly advanced his field? A quick glance at his webpage doesn't suggest anything, and the Web of Knowledge doesn't point to his Nature papers being highly cited (69 and 43 cites). To a first approximation he appears a solid researcher, but as Abductive notes this doesn't distinguish him from n million other academics. --PLUMBAGO 11:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Targeted WoS query "Author=(warrick d*) Refined by: Institutions=(OREGON STATE UNIV OR UNIV MONTANA) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" shows an h-index of 7. His papers are mostly low-author count and he appears to be primary author on many of them. Promising, but still a long way from being notable according to WP:PROF. Another asst prof article too early. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Scholars who have made papers published on prestigious academic journals like Nature or Journal of Clinical Psychiatry are indeed notable, since these journals have much high standards on publishing papers than other academic journals.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few people commenting here have published in such journals. The consensus view as spelled out at WP:PROF is that if

The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)

The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.

The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.

The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.

The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

then they are notable. Does this professor meet any of these? Abductive (reasoning) 18:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the "keep". Don't confuse the impact of the journal with the impact of a single paper within it. One or two papers in Nature do not confer notability simply by virtue of them appearing in that journal. They may ultimately not have all that much impact, or they may – citations will tell. This illustrates the basic hurdle for assistant professors and why their WP articles are usually pre-mature: their work simply has not had enough time to accumulate in quantity or to prove whether it is significant – That is indeed the basic problem here. I noticed that the most highly-cited paper "Mechanical power output of bird flight" (which is indeed in Nature) does not even list him as primary or corresponding author. He was evidently a student when that paper was published, so he was clearly not the primary force behind that work. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment In my opinion, scholars who have successfully made their papers on prestigious international academic journals should all have their own articles. The opposite is not true, though, for some noted scholars in the academia do not submit their papers to prestigious international journals; they submit them to the colleges' publications instead.--RekishiEJ (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is true; the journal is prestigious and it rubs off on the authors therein, or the prestigiousness of the authors has rubbed off on the journal? The answer is that it is the individual authors on each paper, and the quality of those papers, that make the journals prestigious. Since we are not qualified to determine if the author is following in this tradition, we need secondary sources to make this clear. Also, there is a general sentiment on Wikipedia that notability is not inherited; that it doesn't rub off. Finally, allowing articles on everybody who has ever published in "prestigious" journals will lead to hundreds of thousands of articles on subjects nobody cares about. Abductive (reasoning) 20:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF is defined as "a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work." Dr. Warrick's research was the subject of both scientific media and mainstream media coverage, including the BBC and Associated Press, which is highly unusual for ornithological research. The article surpasses WP:RS requirements. Warrah (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, such coverage is not at all unusual, ornithological or otherwise. In the "scientific media" journals routinely spotlight publications, for example the "research highlights" column in Nature carries maybe a dozen descriptions every week. Mainstream media coverage is also not unusual, though it is typically more of a 15 minutes of fame-type of phenomenon. For example, oodles of epidemiologists are all over the news right now giving their spiel about swine flu. Contrary to what your argument would suggest, these sorts of events do not make them notable. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Response. Aside from the fact that your opinion conflicts with the principles of WP:PROF, it also leads to a proverbial Pandora's box of problems and contradictions. For example, what is a "prestigious international academic journal", only Science and Nature, or would there be others (the problem of subjectivity)? What about lab techs, whose names routinely appear in author lists in these publications, who are clearly not notable (contradictory consequence of your system)? What about people who only wrote one such publication, which ultimately turned out not to have any real impact (violation of WP:PROF)? I'm afraid these are only some of the exact reasons why the condition you propose is not part of the notability-vetting principles of WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

- Prestigious journals mean journals having high impact factors. And lab techs generally do not have notability, even if they appear on these journals. They're not the same as scholars.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're just kicking the can down the road. "High impact factor" is still subjective – who decides what the cutoff is? You? "Scholars" is also subjective. Many techs make substantive contributions to research projects. While this doesn't necessarily make them notable, your system would confer such by virtue of them having their names on a paper. You're now forced into a position of subjectively arguing that they essentially aren't "enough of a scholar". Your system falls apart from all its subjective and contradictory implications, which is probably why it isn't part of WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. He does not seem sufficiently notable to me by academic criteria alone - but the existence and content of BBC article would by itself seem to indicate sufficient notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Having read about his work more it now seems to me sufficiently interesting to include on academic grounds alone. Numbers of article don't matter so much as notability of contribution. BBC and Scientific America judged it notable enough to quote the research and in the case of the BBC to warrant an interview with Warrick and several direct quotes. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Mentioned in the BBC and Scientific America is enough but two articles in Nature and now one in the Proceedings of the Royal Society I think should enough for anyone. (Msrasnw (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. Early career academic who may become notable in the future, but not yet.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Msrasnw, "keep due to being quoted once by the BBC" isn't a strong argument. The coverage of his work by a handful of news sources does not confer notability. The articles were all generated by a single press release from Nature, and do not give significant coverage of him as an individual. This is in effect WP:ONEEVENT. He has only about 20 publications and seems to be a run-of-the-mill Assistant Professor. The coverage of him and his impact on his field is insufficient to warrant an article. We already cover his work appropriately here: Rufous Hummingbird#Research on hummingbird hovering. Fences&Windows 00:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is correctly said that notability is not inherited. Subject may achieve WP notability in time but has not done so yet. Article was created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. If you guys want to see what a notable professor of animal locomotion looks like, check out the record of George V. Lauder at Harvard. He has an h-index of 45 and over 200 articles published. He has a mention lay article in National Geographic on how lizards run on water, and a mention in this article on robot fish. He has about ten mentions in the popular press, has written several books, and guess what? No Wikipedia article. Undoubtedly he doesn't care about Wikipedia enough to write an article on himself, and who else is going to? Abductive (reasoning) 05:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that the fact that a more notable prof. hasn't got a page is really a useful argument. It just shows how our coverage is patchy and perhaps that more people should spend time working on creating articles rather than deleting them and arguing about it. I have added a little article on Prof. Lauder now. So in answer to your question "and who else is going to?" Lots of people, including me, add to wikipedia who are unconnected with the subjects of the articles. Is it being suggested that Dr Warrick wrote this entry? (Msrasnw (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It's not supposed to be an argument; I just thought people would be interested. Abductive (reasoning) 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well-chosen example that refutes the opinion of some that all academics are desperate to have their profiles on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per WP:PROF based on Agricola44's comments, etc... above. Eusebeus (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reference sections has many notable news organizations covering him and his work. Dream Focus 02:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Abductive thinks is not relevant to deletion policy at en.wiki. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of reliable sources independent of the subject that discuss the subject in the sort of depth that might help it pass the GNG. Weak sourcing for BLP's is a particular problem.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The work being discussed in Sci Amer and other sources is sufficient to meet notability, whether one calls it Prof or GNG or some blend thereof. Very few people, for that matter, have published two papers in Nature. The new paper in Proceedings of the Royal Society isn't in the citation indexes yet, but it's a journal of almost equal prominence. Citation counts (for the Nature papers) of 61 & 48 may be low in subjects like pharmacology, but not in Zoology. Seems to me that he is an expert in this particular subject. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. Perfectly notable subject, specifically a leading light in the world of animal locomotion and biological fluid mechanics. I might have issues with some of the content, but that's a different story . . . Robinh (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You created the article, and you have some issues with the content? Abductive (reasoning) 21:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been substantially changed since it was created, which may explain that comment. Warrah (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF. Hipocrite (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PROF -

1 The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

Clearly passes: 2 articles in Nature, 1 in Proceedings of the Royal Society

7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Clearly passes: Articles on BBC and in Scientific American on his research naming and quoting him (Msrasnw (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Having the article in Nature is great for one's career, but it takes citations of one's papers to meet the "substantial impact" in point 1. As for point 7, lay people are interested in hummingbird flight, so Warrick's work made for some good copy, but again, those notvoting delete are aware of those news items. Prowling as I do in the halls of academe, I assure that every prof has news clippings taped to his or her door that feature his or her research. In fact, it is often a requirement for tenure that one has such news mentions, meaning that, say, half of all tenured profs will be cited in the lay press. Abductive (reasoning) 10:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two articles in Nature, one in Proceedings of the Royal Society and articles on his reasearch in BBC and Scientific America is not what 2 million other academics have. "Making good copy" - is possibly part of making notability. The BBC and Scientific American are not just the lay press. The BBC site is read by 10s of millions and the Science Page a highly read part of this. Scientific American is one of, if not the leading popular science magazine (published since 1845). Notability as judged by them, I think might be part of what we are supposed to record. If many read about someone and their research there shouldn't we think about having it here. Nature is perhaps one of the most prominent British scientific journals and the Royal Society (founded in 1660) and its journals 'Proceedings of the Royal Society' perhaps the most prominent. We are warned that "Measures of citability ... may be used as a rough guide in evaluating ... but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used." I think that good enough for Nature, Scientific American, the BBC and the Royal Society but not Wikipedia seems a bit odd.(Msrasnw (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see significant impact. Getting in the AP newswire is not substantial. Perhpas I'm opposed to letting biographies of questionably notable living persons be kept so they can later be vehicles to harm the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting on the AP news wire is extremely substantial, particularly for a niche ornithological research study that answered an important question regarding avian locomotion. The article passes WP:RS and WP:GNG without any problem, and Dr. Warrick has established himself as a leader in his field. Warrah (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An important question? Can you show that this question was vexing scientists before Warrick answered it? Can you show a reliable source that calls Warrick a leader? Abductive (reasoning) 16:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"These latest data disprove conclusions from numerous earlier studies that hummingbirds hovered like insects despite their profound muscle and skeletal differences." US National Science Foundation

"Previous investigations into the flight of the hummingbird had suggested that it could be employing the same mechanisms as insects, which often hover and dart in a manner similar to the bird." Scientific American

Difficult to find reliable sources calling individual scientists in biophysics leaders (Msrasnw (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Warrah is still peddling the media coverage opinion, but I again remind readers that this is not all that unusual for academics. See my comment above. Nota bene: All academic research ostensibly uncovers something new, otherwise it's not publishable. Respectully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Disproving earlier studies? I've done that in my one published scientific paper, it is commonplace. What I asked was, if the question was so vexing, can you find a paper that says, "this is an important question in bird flight that has not been answered".

It is not so difficult to find sources calling leading scientists such. Look through the review papers that cite their works. Abductive (reasoning) 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources say that "These latest data disprove conclusions from numerous earlier studies" and "Previous investigations into the flight of the hummingbird had suggested that" . I think this is clear evidence that there were studies looking at this. I think what is clear is that we are talking at cross purposes. I think Scientific America, the BBC, Nature, The Royal Society, The US National Science Foundation and Associated Press are sufficiently important to establish notability - you don't. We disagree. I am also not sure why you would bring your one paper in and why it might be relevant here. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Do you have some examples of "leading biophysicists" working in the area of Biomechanics that I/we/you should make some pages on instead of indugling in this kind of discussion? Why don't we do that making our encylopedia better. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with that. It does no particular good to the encyclopedia to weed out a few marginally-notable articles. It does do good to remove junk, but this is above that. It would do good to update the older articles; it would do good to write articles on the important people and topics we need. Every time we devote to an A f d like this what is probably 4 or 5 people-hours total, plus the concern and involvement, those hours & involvement could have produced half a dozen articles. If you're looking for biophysicists, I checked one department -- Yale, and found the following full professors (possibly not a complete list): Victor S. Batista, Ronald Breaker, Gary Brudvig, Craig M. Crews, Mark Bender Gerstein, William L. Jorgensen, Anna Marie Pyle, Thomas D. Pollard, Lynne Regan, Alanna Schepartz, Scott Strobel, John Tully, Kurt W. Zilm. We seem to be missing 8 out of 12. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that Henrik's times-viewed tool shows when people look at non-existent articles? For example, Gary Brudvig had 2 view attempts back in May 2009: [54] and none since then. People are not interested in looking up professors; they may want to look up the results of their scholarly endeavors. You are advocating creating BLPs for no reason. Abductive (reasoning) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Two papers in Nature is something, and this topic is hot among anthropologists right now. I think there's enough here. Shadowjams (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, two papers "is something", but not in the way you're arguing. This assertion was thoroughly debunked already (see above). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It's a little presumptuous to call that argument "thoroughly debunked". You're reading too much into "the way [I'm] arguing." Shadowjams (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so – your wording seems to be pretty clear. You're saying that this article should be kept because the subject has 2 Nature publications on what you feel is a "hot topic", are you not? The implication is that the prestige attached to Nature is inherited by a Nature author whereby the latter is now notable. This line of argument is pretty much the same as the "all Nature authors are notable" opinion advanced by RekishiEJ above and it was indeed debunked: the claim has lots of subjective and contradictory consequences (examples above) and violates WP:INHERITED. Very respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: DGG won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to pass WP:PROF via prong #1. I brought this article up on IRC quite some time ago to see if I should AfD it, which prompted several improvements including the addition of the nature articles. The article has improved even more since then, and I think now the sources do, at least narrowly, establish notability. VegaDark (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But #1 speaks to the impact of a person's work, which is not born-out by the low citation record described above. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:09, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean E. Brotherson[edit]

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

Assistant professor who happens to have written a book, Why Fathers Count: The Importance of Fathers and their Involvement with Children. Is this enough to pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR? Abductive (reasoning) 02:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 04:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 04:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although GS shows h-index of 6, WoS ("Author=(brotherson s*)") gives only a 1. Far short of impact described by WP:PROF. This is an uncontroversial delete of a scholar who's page was created way too early in his career. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Enough achievement not yet there. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF. Clear-cut. Eusebeus (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable by any standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Wallack[edit]

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

Assistant professor of economics who also "currently coauthors a bi-weekly column in the Financial Express". Is this enough to pass WP:PROF? WP:AUTHOR? h-index is around 5. Abductive (reasoning) 02:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 04:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 04:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS query "Author=(wallack j*) Refined by: Institutions=(UNIV CALIF SAN DIEGO OR STANFORD UNIV OR INST FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT & RES) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" shows an h-index of 2, obviously far short of the impact described by WP:PROF #1. Regular work as a columnist in an Indian financial periodical doesn't establish notability either – i.e. there are many such columnists, but there's not even a claim that her role in this position has impacted anything. Indeed, most of the article simply lists the positions she's held. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Too little here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF based on the citation index results. Eusebeus (talk) 18:49, 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. Neither the amount of Google hits nor a passing review on a blog satisfy the requirements of our policies on notability. The award nomination is a indication of importance but as Dahn correctly points out, the guideline explicitly requires multiple nominations. So Why 07:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Suburban Jungle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

"Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance"

This article contains no content other than a description of the web site and its content, the bulk of the article is plot detail free of any commentary or critical context. It has been tagged as lacking references for since August 2007 (over 2 years) and I have not been able to find anything from independent reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Having received significant coverage from independent reliable sources is the criterion given for a stand-alone article by the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for web content states that "primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability". Guest9999 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this webcomic. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a five-year-old article that represents the works of tens of editors about a webcomic that publishes regularly, has been collected on paper by Plan 9, and is still active. googling the name of the comic and the word webcomic garners over 15,000 hits. the name and 'comic' gets 3,960,000 google hits. It clearly has a following. It's true, standard media don't review webcomics. Even fans usually just post about them in lists of good webcomics. The self-styled WebComicCritic says of Suburban Jungle, "How a furry comic is meant to work." (April 9, 2009).
- WebComicCritic is a blog and it doesn't even give a full review of the comic, the short passing quote you give is the sum of the coverage. Having fans post about them in forums or their personal websites a) could not be included in the article and b) is in no way an indicator of notability. I get just over 9000 Google hits for your suggested search but they boil down to exactly 141 on the default stetting which omits repeat results. From those pages I can find official websites, blogs, wikis, forums, other webcomics and webcomic directories but nothing even approaching a reliable source. The books appear to have received no more coverage than the comic - i.e. none - and so do not meet any of the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Guest9999 (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The article's age and how many people worked on it are irrelevant; policy needs to be followed if it is to mean anything. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All it really means is that Wikipedia loses another topic. If Wikipedia wants to throw away good copy, we're glad to transwiki the article to WikiFur and work on it there. GreenReaper (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Under WP:WEB is The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization... Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability. This webcomic was nominated for The Ursa Major Awards, 2004. Chip Unicorn (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Erm, it was nominated once for an award. The requirement you cited, as you cited it, says that it should have done one of the following: a) win; b) be nominated several times, in succession. Dahn (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, unsourcable, going nowhere. Dahn (talk) 08:11, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilante, Ho![edit]

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

I can find no independent reliable that cover this topic. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not requires that articles about websites should go beyond their content and nature and give an encyclopaedic treatment which covers their achievements, impact and significance. Without any independent verification from reliable sources such an encyclopaedic treatment will not be possible for this topic. Coverage by independent reliable sources is also a requirement of both the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for web content. Guest9999 (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this webcomic. Joe Chill (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable whatsinames. Even the link in the article is dead. Crafty (talk) 20:33, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberspace Communications[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet the criteria of either WP:WEB or WP:ORG Tan | 39 01:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The free speech case that Cyberspace was involved with is not obscure, and is widely cited. N. Harmon (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any verifiability of that? There is no sourcing in the article that shows that this is "widely cited". Tan | 39 21:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article looks like navel gazing by the Grex community. Zero hits in Google News,[55] only brief snippets mentioning them in Google Books. I will change my assessment as soon as significant coverage appearing in multiple reliable sources is shown. Fences&Windows 23:28, 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) 00:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable -- no real mentions in news or books despite some of the claims in the article. Also, I don't think the COPA mentioned in the article (a MI statute) is the same COPA that most people will think of (federal statute). Bfigura ^(talk) 02:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no apparent notability. Shadowjams (talk) 06:26, 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 delete (A1). Alexf^(talk) 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aire (program)[edit]

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

I found zero sources for this. Joe Chill (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also effectively copyvio HalfShadow (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the copyvio which leaves "It is very similar to NetStumbler except that it does not have to be installed and therefore can run from anywhere." Now it looks like it can be speedied as A1. Joe Chill (talk) 00:20, 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 keep and cleanup. I stubbified the article. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Center Institute[edit]

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

This article reads like an advert, is unsourced, and the only external link offered is to the organisation's own website. DB 103 245-7 ^Talk 19:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. Though poorly-written and seemingly promotional, the subject actually appears to be notable as the performing arts school associated with the Lincoln Center. A quick internet search turns up several more sources, including a ref from Harvard [56] among others. The article has no place on Wikipedia in its present form, but WP:DEL#REASON also gives no justification for deletion at present. --Whoosit (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but userfy, rescue, or incubate - this has potential, but I don't know where to begin. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 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, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Notable given the association with the Lincoln Center, but needs some work Bfigura ^(talk) 02:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. It may be necessary to stubbify first, but its notable anyway. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TAK (audio codec)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This non-notable audio codec has no sources other than links to its developer and some web forums. Wikipedia is not a software directory! It was put up for AfD two years ago, it was kept on the argument that its features and performance were notable. That is not our criteria whatsoever. Miami33139 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this codec. Joe Chill (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 20:27, 23 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) 00:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was likewise unable to find significant coverage. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:43, 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. Consensus has no objection to recreation once more coverage exists though. So Why 07:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again (video game)[edit]

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

Not yet finished video game about which "there are currently only a few details known about". Hardly verifiable, prod removed. Tikiwont (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once it gets closer to completion and the article does not have to include 'there are currently only a few details known' it might be ready, but that sentence is a dead giveaway that it is not ready. Sodam Yat (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [57], [58], [59], and [60]. Only a few details known my butt. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks that was both an unfortunate wording in the article and the nomination. Which actually hings on WP:V. What we currently have as spelled out in the cite articles is info about the game fed to game news sites by the producers: "Producer Koichi Yamaguchi walked us through a very early build of the game" etc. The same sites that reported duly an upcoming release in spring 2009. Reliable secondary sources with a reputation for fact checking look different to me. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - major video game on production. Cynof Gavuf 07:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:45, 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) 00:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A game with "first impressions" and a TBA year. Not TBA quarter, or month. Year, and it's already been delayed a full year? Since there's not even a Japanese release yet we don't have any actual proof it won't be cancelled. Even on forums I just checked, people are getting discouraged since they haven't heard anything whatsoever. Per WP:CRYSTAL, something this unknown with no time frame, absolutely not for Wikipedia. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The game's developer provides a walkthrough of "a very early build". Some journalists manage "a brief play". All in all, not significant coverage, barely rating above a press release in WP:N terms (I see that all the sources are using the same screenshots). No objection to listing at List_of_Tecmo_games, citing one of the above links. Marasmusine (talk) 17:19, 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 keep. Wizardman 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiva Weerawarana[edit]

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

No-notable software developer. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. ^Bongo_matic 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scopus shows 26 publications, with citation counts 311, 179, etc. Anyone with two publications with that much impact is notable in his field--especially since conference papers are mostly not included in Scopus , but are major information resource in the area. The rest of his career is compatible with the objective count. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS gives top cites of 1522, 759, 730, 445, 335, 306 etc. with an h index of around 30. Even allowing for the subject's activities being in an IT based area and therefore likely to have high web exposure, the GS and Scopus cites above are far above average. This appears to be a careless and time-wasting nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

comment: normally, the GS counts are about 2x the Scopus counts. That they are 4X higher in this case is very reasonable, because of the subject matter; GS includes many more of the non peer-reviewed journal sources that Scopus (or WOS) limits itself to . DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(@Xx) This appears to be a careless and time-wasting comment, inasmuch as citation counts are irrelevant to the question whether this person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable works whose sources are independent of him from which an actual encyclopedia article can be constructed. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I would add that the article doesn't assert notability strongly enough (which can and should be fixed). Bfigura ^(talk) 02:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's up with this rash of "asserting notability" piffle I've been seeing crop up at afd lately? "Asserting notability" is a csd criterion. "Asserting notability" is neither necessary nor sufficient for an article to pass afd. Sources are. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is a guideline for inclusion in general. Asserting importance or significance (a lower standard) ((Db-a7)) is related to speedy deletion. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry 160.39., I guess I didn't make my point clear enough. I think the article's subject is notable. However, as written, the article doesn't really demonstrate importance or significance. This should be fixed. Why? Because otherwise someone is liable to come across it in the future and go "This doesn't assert notability, let's send it to AfD/CSD/Prod" and thereby waste everyone's time. This could be avoided by improving the article. That's all. --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), based on citation count. Has a high h-index of 31.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:44, 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.