The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Rego[edit]

Lindsay Rego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced, Notability is questioned DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable senior civil servant. All gnews hits come from a single local publication.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Sodabottle. RFerreira (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It would be helpful to know what material the nominator considers contentious. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the connection from DAIGIworld (only reference). The contentious was set by another user also. See the summary. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't answer my question. Which of the statements in the article do you consider contentious? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is your vote? Do what is good for you. I have answered it. Thanks.--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is who set contentious and I agree with that - Is DAIGIworld (only reference) a reputed publication in India?. 11:05, 6 April 2009 Mr.Z-bot (talk | contribs) m (3,966 bytes) (Unreferenced BLP) (undo) --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prabha S. Neeralagi[edit]

Prabha S. Neeralagi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not sufficiently described to make her notable - No significant publications in the fieldDoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough to meet WP:PROF.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete MathSciNet counts 7 papers over the last 33 years, with a total of 6 citations. Search for Gnews was unavailing, Gscholar doesn't improve noticeably on MathSciNet. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 17:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and expand. Borderline notability, but on the good side of that border. LotLE×talk 23:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious. What makes you say that? Ray^Talk 23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citations to Neeralagi are quite a few more than you indicate. One paper has 33 citations, another 11, etc. That's hardly an overwhelming number, but it's a lot more than the 6 citations you claim, RayAYang. On reflection though, I'll call it "weak keep". LotLE×talk 23:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't consider 11 to be a lot; the 33 citation paper is not by the subject. It's by somebody who cites the subject. Ray^Talk 23:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm. I hadn't noticed that RayAYang, if the 33 isn't the right guy being cited, I indeed start to waiver. My !vote is a "weak" one, but I'll monitor this discussion, and possibly change it later. LotLE×talk 08:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, prof fails WP:PROF. JBsupreme (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, very low citation count. Abductive (reasoning) 11:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• fyi- Wikipedia article traffic statistics is another way of measuring popularity especially during afd process...Usually this number shoots up when in demand/in trouble. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly notable. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M. M. Kalburgi[edit]

M. M. Kalburgi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Is wiki notable, please expand it DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The scholar's notability is not really questioned, and I have added a source that attests to that. Further sources are likely to be available in Kannada since that is the language Kalburgi worked in. Abecedare (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. VC of a State university and winner of a Sahitya Akademi award. Satisfies #6 and #2 of WP:PROF.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 05:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As winner of the Sahitya Akademi Award he passes WP:BIO, and also others like WP:PROF as Vice-Chancellor of a state university. –SpacemanSpiff 05:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SpacemanSpiff and Sodabottle. LotLE×talk 23:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly passes WP:BIO and WP:PROF based on several significant awards; easily sourceable. Nsk92 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Wesleyan Church[edit]

Heritage Wesleyan Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This local church as no notability รัก-ไทย 03:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to be quite an average church. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable; the only Google hits are local directories and such. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ito Sakata[edit]

Ito Sakata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This actor does not seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Malkinann (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Malkinann (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Malkinann (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Malkinann (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, lacks significant coverage from reliable third party publications. Typical disclaimer: if non-trivial coverage can be located in a non-English language, and can be confirmed to be from a reliable source I will withdraw my !delete. JBsupreme (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possible PR by management firm, and no results which may not have been added by the firm on Google (first 8 pages) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotovia (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Bit parts are not what's needed to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. She may become notable in the future for her voice acting work, but for now, delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment'. This is a Google translation of the Japanese Wikipedia page. This is a Google News archive search for her Japanese name, 阪田伊都 – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, the Japanese Wikipedia has a "blood type" field in their infoboxes? How weird. JBsupreme (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Blood types in Japanese culture -- it's taken more seriously than, say, zodiac signs are in the States, and I meet a lot of people who swear by their horoscope. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I added some references. Google translation doesn't give you more than a general idea of what the Japanese articles are discussing. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure if the article now passes GNGs or not? --Malkinann (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete When I redid the LOW, I noticed that all but one were bit parts. And even the non-bit part isn't enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. She may be notable some day, but not today. —Farix (t | c) 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Have you checked the Japanese Wikipedia article for this? She has done a lot more work than is listed. [1] Dream Focus 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added in the information from the Japanese Wikipedia. Most of the things she has been in, have Wikipedia articles about them. Dream Focus 05:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it was a repeat of what is already on the article or can't be cited, so it has been removed. And the Japanese Wikipedia is not a reliable source either and can be as full of junk as the English Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 11:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And is almost never sourced...Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I always chuckle when someone claims that the JP Wiki is better than the English. —Farix (t | c) 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable? How often does someone upload wrong information about a voice actor? Is that a common occurrence? Would it be possible to just tag something you doubt, and then someone who owns one of those series can then check the credits? [2] Lot of stuff edited out. Would searching for the Japanese names of those series together with that of the voice actor, produce any results? Sometimes companies list their full cast on their official websites. Doesn't the voice actor's site list her work somewhere? Anyone speak Japanese and feel like finding out? Hard to navigate and look around through Google translator. Dream Focus 19:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People put up dubious information all the time in biographies, and the JP Wikipedia is just as sustainable to dubious information as the EN Wikipedia. This is why reliable sources are required for biographies of living people. If the information is viewed by an editor as dubious and is unsourced, the editor has a responsibility to remove it. And it's interesting that you are holding up a series of edits I made removing such dubious information that you had inserted as if it was some sort of "bloody shirt". —Farix (t | c) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't just looking for factual accuracy. Everything needs to be verifiable with reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not what i could can a "voice actor career" with just one worth mention role. Fail WP:ENTERTAINER. --KrebMarkt 07:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• She was in 11 of the 12 episodes of Dōjin Work [3] Significant character in a notable series. And doing some searching for the deleted things, there are many places that list her in it. Just what's on the list now should prove notability. Dream Focus 20:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER specifically requires that an actor have significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This actress has only one significant role then their career. The rest have been bit-part with no significance at all. —Farix (t | c) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - From what I have seen, this actor fails WP:ENTERTAINER as well as our general inclusion guidelines. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely fails WP:N and WP:BIO/WP:ENTERTAINER. With no significant, or even insignificant, coveage on this person, not only are they unnotable but there is no true way to create an article on Sakata that meets WP:BLP that has anything more than their name, which of course is not appropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Delete This makes 8, I do not see notability here as she has played very monor roles in anime. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable, has voiced characters in notable series, contains highly reliable sources such as this, which is self-proclaimed to be "the worlds most highly trusted anime news source". That to me is an indicator of notability. Voiced a secretary in Eden of the East, Secretaries are well noted for their emotion in speaking, this voice actor should be credited for such an accomplishment and have a good article written about her obviously notable career. As for having a significant role. Who decides? Is voicing a charatcer in 11 out of 12 episodes of a notable series not good enough? We accept articles about actors who may have only had small minor roles in multiple films, even those who appear in z-lister films, so why not voice actors too if they are covered in sources which the anime project generaly regard as reliable? Whats the difference to say Yoshiko Asai who according to the anime website has only had two major roles, the rest similarly minor roles like this AFD subject? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 21:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANN Encyclopedia is not a reliable source (certainly not highly), and the Anime project does NOT consider it reliable - it is specifically listed as unreliable in the project pages and the project itself made a concerted effort to remove its use as references from GA and above articles (delisting them if no other source could be found). The ANN encyclopedia is user edited, unlike their actual news stories. Your response here is very confusing and I almost suspect it is being WP:POINTy and intended almost sarcastically because of the Runa Akiyama‎ AfD...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, There just seems a bit of a contradiction thats all. I find it hard to believe that certain individuals will claim obvious notability in one place yet reject another based on what appears to be little difference in coverage on actual TV site databases. The criteria in this case is "hasn't really had a signficant role" but that is really open to interpretation. They are still credited roles, which normally meets actor requirements so why not voice actors? Many of the project members themseleves said sources like www.81produce are reliable and indicate notability. I find it unusual that nobody is really seriously taking into account sourcing over any of these nominations and are making a decision of notability based on their own POV and self-knowledge of the subject matter. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between what I'm saying here and discussions where I've said keep is whether any roles have been leading roles, one of the main protagonists or antagonists. These do not require "self-knowledge" of the subject matter but a consultation of the articles of the series the person acted in. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're being deliberately facetious here and completely twisting my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runa Akiyama and taking them out of context. My assertion there is that Akiyama has had several significant roles in multiple series. And in accordance to the criteria at WP:ENTERTAINER We may have an article on her. Sakata, on the other hand, has only one significant role. WP:NOTE is just one possible guideline for inclusion. WP:BIO is another. A subject isn't need to have significant coverage by reliable reliable-party source if it meets one of the other inclusion criteria. If passing WP:NOTE was required for all subject, then there wouldn't need any of the subject specific criteria. —Farix (t | c) 21:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Their most notable roles are minor and most of their work is background voices - most of these "characters" don't even have names. No prejudice against recreation should they ever become notable, but they sure aren;t now. Edward321 (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MwForum[edit]

MwForum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I had prodded this forum software, but also deprodded it after a request on its talk page for a discussion of its notability. Pcap ping 23:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bramble[edit]

Tom Bramble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable academic. Only mentioned in one article listed in the entry, written by Socialist Alternative which fails as a neutral reliable source. Fails WP:Academic. No notable contributions, articles listed are minor and refer largely to existing work. No listed academic awards. No memberships in prestigous scholary organisations.His work does not affect a signficant number of academic institutions.Holds now proffessorship chairs. Not covered by WP:CREATIVE Rotovia (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong DeleteAs stated above Rotovia (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this nominator has !voted both here and below. It seems like clarifying/refactoring his separate comments to avoid appearances of attempting to game the discussion would be helpful. LotLE×talk 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WorldCat shows holdings about what is expected for an academic book (<200). His peer-reviewed scholarship, though consisting of about 20 papers, is barely cited by other works. WoS shows counts of 9, 2, 2, 0, 0, ... for an h-index of at most 2. The overall picture here seems to be one where impact is far short of what is required by WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong keep. Independent sources. Notable book. On executive of notable organization. This nom feels like one of those far too many cases now of deletionist bias. LotLE×talk 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Now that I have made a minor improvement to the article (nothing affecting notability, just WP:STYLE and wording tweaks), but also since I looked around for web presence a bit, I change my "Keep" to "Strong keep". This is one of those article where it would be a stupid, damn shame to needlessly delete a notable figure with a good biography. General reasons and argument are not different, I've just looked a bit more in detail at the independent sources. LotLE×talk 09:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And here I am wondering why I can't get anything deleted these days. I feel like the pendulum has swung too far in the keep direction lately. Abductive (reasoning) 11:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable author. I do not think he passes wp:prof, however. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Good faith assumption would be appreciated. I can see no indication of notable works cited by other academic sources as required for WP:Academic. Please reference these if you have located them Rotovia (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to pass on WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

For the purposes of WP:Bio a number of categories including WP:Author fall under WP:Creative, and if someone is an academic they are covered by WP:Academic. The books are also not notable in and of themselves Rotovia (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect: a subject may pass in any category that they fall under. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

He does not fall under WP:Author, and books are not notable Rotovia (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he writes books he would appear to fall into the category of WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Of course, the writing of the books part is not necessarily sufficient – like peer-reviewed pubs, they have to be able to clear a "significance" hurdle (e.g. "a significant or well-known work" in WP:AUTHOR), which we normally assess by institutional holdings. Here, WorldCat shows 185 for the Trade Unionism book, 3 for the Labor Party book, and 71 for the Jock Barnes book. These stats don't strike me as very impressive, even for academic-sector books. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment There seems to be a trend on AfD's to judge many individuals who hold academics posts by the hyper-strict criteria of WP:PROF (which is itself vastly more restrictive than it was a few years ago). However, many of these biographies (including this one), easily meet WP:GNG and/or WP:AUTH, even if they fail on WP:PROF by itself. Our goal on AfD discussion should not be to locate the most restrictive criteria possible for each topic, but to determine if it meets notability under any of the prongs of that standard. LotLE×talk 22:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is clear that this subject is being judged under WP:AUTHOR. Those notvoters above who are only addressing WP:PROF will likely be ignored by the closing admin. Abductive (reasoning) 11:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The !vote by Agricola44 and the first !vote by Rotovia explicitly state failure under WP:PROF as their reason for their opinion. Rotovia later "casts" a second, duplicate !vote indicating that he doesn't believe the bio subject satisfies WP:AUTH, but Agricola44 has not indicated whether he has considered WP:AUTH as of this moment. LotLE×talk 09:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification. Please re-read my second entry. I've reported institutional holdings for his books, which are routinely used to assess WP:AUTH. In effect, I'm claiming (without casting an explicit 2nd "delete") that the subject does not pass WP:AUTH either. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Strong Delete Not notable as author Rotovia (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vote more than once. You voted on 3 Feb. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Allow me to clarify, I'm offering my vote under WP:Author Rotovia (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Agapova[edit]

Nina Agapova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per the extensive filmography at ru:Агапова, Нина Фёдоровна and her status as an Honored Artist of the RSFSR. This] is a machine translation of the Russian Wikipedia page. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep every Honored Artist of the RSFSR because such distinction provides a clear notability status. The actress will remain in the history of the Russian moviemaking.sulmues (talk--Sulmues 14:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meritorious artists are most definitely notable. I've also added a couple refs to address the "unreferenced BLP" issue.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:51, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I was concerned about the arguments noting the now-banned user who initially created the article, and who submitted edits to it up until February 1. Indeed, reading that revision does give serious reason for concern. However, a diff between that version and the current one [4] indicates that the article has undergone significant changes, and a read of the current version has removed most of the material which concerned me (what is left may well be appropriate and relevant, but my job here is not to make a complete audit of the article). With a significant number of people arguing to keep and making a reasonable argument by pointing to sources covering Mr. McLaren, I cannot see a consensus to delete this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth McLaren[edit]

Kenneth McLaren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Does not pass WP:N, entire article is just a fork off of Robert Baden-Powell's bio article and sexuality article. Policy is very clear in stating that relationships do not confer notability. No evidence exists to show that Kenneth McLaren is notable in his own right. Please see Invalid Criteria for Notability Nefariousski (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is really difficult to find any independent notability for this guy. There's no obituary in The Times for 1924, which is is a 'major' source for contemporary notability, nor any other specific mention.   pablo_hablo. 23:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An impressive amount of work has been done on this article, there are other mentions of both Mc and Mac out there (independent of his friendship with Baden-Powell) too. It is difficult with some of the online mentions to definitively tie them down to this particular Kenneth McLaren, but I think he now squeaks past the notability bar.   pablo_hablo. 16:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Any notability that he has is only in relation to his friendship with Baden Powell, he is not independently notable. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article does need some work, but those who might do that work are being distracted by people questioning references. The main work needed just keeps getting delayed. Certainly McLaren's relationship with Baden-Powell is important, but it has been noticed. His role in Scouting has also been noted. Readers will want to know more about the man who was B-P's Assistant Scoutmaster at the important Brownsea Island Scout camp and who was the first Manager of Scouting immediately after its foundation. I think there are more sources to find about that. There is also much more to say about his role in the Boer War, where he served with Plumer. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was an assistant at Brownsea only, one of about 25 others and the managers position appears to have had little authority or any work of note, likely a unimportant position given to him by his friend, there are no details of what happened in this role or when he left or who replaced him or if the post was even continued at all, imo he was a very minor player in the early scout movement, again he is remembered only as a friend of B Powell. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brownsea. Where do you get the 25 from? There were 6 adults present. One was Quartermaster, one was catering officer, one was cook, one was an instructor from the Coastguard station, one was Percy Everett, Pearson's literary editor who was not there all the time. McLaren was B-P's assistant and is appropriately called Assistant Scoutmaster, with B-P as Scoutmaster. All of what you say about the manager is covered by Jeal - his role, his fights with Peearson's, when he left etc. It is an important part of scouting history. You are hot on wanting sources. Do you have one that he was a very minor player? --Bduke (Discussion) 00:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I read that right? Are you honestly asking that he be proven "not notable"? Last I checked the burdon of proof is on proving someone IS notable, not the other way around. Someone isn't just assumed to be notable until proven otherwise. Nefariousski (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not asking that. It was tongue in cheek. Off2riorob has been very keen to get sources for his rank, his school, when he joined his regiment, and so on, where there is no reason to challenge the statements. Now he claims "he was a very minor player in the early scout movement", after showing a very poor knowledge of the Brownsea Island Camp and Jeal's book. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is one of Notability. Completely remove any relationship to Baden-Powell (notability is not inherited through relationship) and then ask yourself if on his own merit, does Kenneth McLaren meet WP:N. Can you please give me some examples of what Kenneth McLaren is notable for (that meet WP:N) outside of his relationship to a notable person? Nefariousski (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did. Role in scouting is not just linked to B-P otherwise we would not have an article on his wife. It is about the movement. Of course, he is not as notable, as Lady B-P, but he is noticed and that is how we define notability. There is also possibly the Boer War. However, I have other things to do. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His wife is independently notable through works of her own. Her notability doesn't hinge upon being the wife of B-P. Her notability can be established by her list of high awards and honors alone. If every mention of B-P was removed from her article she would still pass WP:N Nefariousski (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A minor but interesting personage, who was a significant other to a very important historical figure. I second Bduke's view that there is more to unearth on him. Though not relevant to this debate, I would like to note that the well-meaning individuals trying to scuttle this article are the selfsame who have been twisting themselves into pretzels trying to cover up the dodgy sexuality of Baden-Powell, the founder of the boy scouts, by attempting to delete that article also. The fact that McLaren was B-P's intimate friend for thirty years could not have anything to do with your other efforts to improve Wikipedia, could it guys? Haiduc (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I'd like to note that Haiduc was just blocked indef per Arbcom ruling. The only reason I'm posting this is because the reason for his blocking indirectly pertains to the subject matter of this article that he created. Nefariousski (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Haiduc created this article and he has been banned. While, I know this was not your intention, I just hope that your comment is not seen by some as tarring those other editors who support keeping this article with the same brush. An article does not belong to its original editor. In this case there are people who have come across Kenneth McLaren from the Scouting articles and Scouting history in general and wanted to know more about him. We happen to think this might develop into a useful and interesting article. --Bduke(Discussion) 07:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're 100% correct, and for the record let me state that I in no way intended nor intend to say any supporters of this article have anything to do with or share the ideas of Haiduc. I meerly wanted to bring this to the attention of those involved with this discussion because the motivations for creating the article (initially) are related to what got Haiduc blocked and I felt that full disclosure was warranted to steer us away from the now deleted Baden-powell sexuality link and more towards establishing notability for McLaren in his own right and barring that opening up the possibility to merge the content of this article into the main B-P article. Nefariousski (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with "minor" and I agree that he was significant to someone that was notable. But notability is not inherited. Here's the test. Let's pretend that there was no evidence at all that McLaren ever had met Baden-Powell. For what would he be notable? If the entire claim to notability is that he possibly had a relationship with a notable character then he clearly doesn't meet WP:N Nefariousski (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Further Comment Under that logic why not have an article for his favorite brother Augustus? He was obviously significant to BP. How about his Grandson? This is a prime example for why notability isn't inherited. Nefariousski (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are pushing that kind of argument too far, as is illustrated by the fact that we do have an article on his Grandson, which is a well sourced and interesting article. It is Michael Baden-Powell. Do you want to delete that also? --Bduke (Discussion) 01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence about the notability of Michael Baden-Powell. While it's clear that he's an important figure in scouting he's only an important figure in scouting due to his relation to B-P. But that's another issue to be thought about independently of the Kenneth McLaren article. Nefariousski (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bduke. While probably notable mostly because of his relationship to Baden-Powell, this is irrelevant regarding WP:GNG (meaning that, if sources talk of him, as it seems, he is not simply presumed notable by association as the nom seems to imply). --Cyclopia^talk 01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from his obituary the only sources available (so far) only refer to him in context of his relationship with B-P. How does that pass WP:GNG. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just would like you to explain your reasoning. A good example for notability not being inherited can be seen in this AFD for Andrew Jackson Sr. Nefariousski (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is not inherited" means that a subject X cannot be presumed notable only because of relationship with notable subject Y. However, if several RS appropriately discuss subject X, even if in relationship with Y, then the subject passes WP:GNG. Example: X is the wife or husband of a notable scientist. Is she notable only because of that? No, of course. But now, imagine there are three biographies of such scientist, and all these three biographies of the scientist dedicate several pages to him or her. Is he/she notable now? Yes, because we have several RS discussing the subject enough to allow us to write content. --Cyclopia^talk 02:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The example of Andrew Jackson Sr. shows exactly the opposite of that. Multiple RS mention him and his relationship / influence of his son. Yet none of those sources evaluated him on his own merits nor was he the subject of any of the sources. I'm not advocating we blindly follow that example but it is very very similar in nature to your example. The only source that puts much discussion into McLaren is Jeal and only there is it discussed in context to his relation to B-P. Outside of that we have what? His obituary? His military records? Nefariousski (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't follow you in full. We have sources. They talk of the guy. Why is fact that they talk of him in the context of coverage of another person relevant in any way to the discussion? If we have enough RS sources to write a bio, why shouldn't we? That's the core of WP:GNG. The example you made ended with a merge, so it is unclear what it should tell us (if anything, that actually you don't want the article deleted: a merge is something that can be dealt with editing, not deletion). Notice that being the subject of any of the sources is explicitly not required by GNG: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. --Cyclopia^talk 02:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia, practically all secondary source discuss him very briefly, and always in connection with B-P or someone else, e.g Baker Russel. The "significant coverage" part of WP:GNG is not met. Most of the details in the bio are filled from various primary sources or other passing mentions. The only significant coverage is presumably the obituary in the Cavalry Journal. Pcap ping 08:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no access to most of the sources indeed, but for example the one from the Anglo-Boer war website talks only about him. That said, if these details can be reported without resorting to WP:OR, I'd say we can have a WP:V verifiable article on the subject, made using several sources, therefore in my opinion it passes WP:GNG. --Cyclopia^talk 11:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is even better. It's a paged dedicated to biographies of those in the Boer war, and entirely unrelated to Scouting or homosexuality. Clearly notable for multiple things. Pcap ping 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. Pcap ping 06:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I recommend that people obsessed with nuking contributions of banned users read the references before voting. 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sorry, but he's not independently notable, once BP is removed from the picture. Clear delete per WP:FAILN - Alison ^❤ 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, that's not a guideline for inclusion or exclusion. It's a list of instructions how to proceed with something that fails WP:N. Pcap ping 07:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. Make it a WP:GNG fail, so. My point re notability via association still stands - Alison ^❤ 07:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. He was covered at least three times in the London Gazette for his actions in the Boer War, got a DSO, and has a biography on site dedicate to the War, but not to to B-P or scouting. He's also covered in C. R. B. Barrett, History of the XIII Hussars, 1911; an excerpt is posted on a B-P related site, but the original publication is a historical work dedicated to the war, not to B-P and his relationships. Pcap ping 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That site has 100 similar biographies of Boer War DSO recipients whose names began with M. The London Gazette records Mentions in Dispatches (which MacLaren was twice) and other awards. The book chapter mentions dozens of officers by name. These are not evidence of notability. Kanguole 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:notability does not equal fame, as that guideline explains. All those people are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Of course, nobody cares to create those all those bios here, but that's a different matter. They are certainly more interesting than the random Wikipedia village article with a blank page and an infobox with its location. Pcap ping 13:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Every soldier has some sort of hometown hero mention in the local newspaper (I've got two of my own) and historical military records are becoming widely available online. That doesn't equal notability. If you google my name you'll find a dozen hits from reliable sources and enough information to scrape together a stub article but by no means do I meet WP:N. I wouldn't be suprised if that was the same for half the people on WP. Nefariousski (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, it does mean that you meet WP:GNG, exactly, even if maybe by a small margin. --Cyclopia^talk 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • • • I hardly think being mentioned in a list with dozens if not hundreds of others or a few blurbs about service dates or promotions meets the word or spirit of the "Significant Coverage" tenent of GNG. Not to mention that passing GNG isn't grounds for inclusion alone. Nefariousski (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable independently of his friendship with Baden Powell. Viridae^Talk 07:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong [5]. (see above) Pcap ping 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not swayed by Cyclopia's reasoning. This is a textbook case of where notability is not inherited. As this is just another content fork/coatrack article by a now-banned user, I recommend a speedy as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am going in search of print documentation today. Given what I've seen in GBooks I am dubious that this fellow played that important a part in scouting history, and the rest of it is just coatracking. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet the latest in a series of pov forks created by a pro-pedophilia editor, since banned. This one was created when another of his distorted forks was on the verge of deletion. Basta.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was created on February 6 2006, long before the AfD was started. Who created it is not a reason for deletion and you are throwing mud at all the other editors of this article on the basis of who created it. Please withdraw this comment. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how this is a (POV) fork? Do we have other articles about this subject? --Cyclopia^talk 13:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's a non-notable ex cavalry major (there have been thousands). The article was created to discuss a theoretical relationship between this figure and another. That is the sole reason the article on this non-notable was created, and it will be a constant magnet from such coatracking nonsense.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is currently in dispute. The reason for which an article has been created are completely irrelevant regarding to its appropriateness. The fact also that it can be a "magnet" is, at best, a reason for protection, not deletion. --Cyclopia^talk 13:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• He was covered at least three times in the London Gazette for his actions in the Boer War, got a DSO, and has a biography on site dedicate to the War, but not focused on B-P or scouting. He's also covered in C. R. B. Barrett, History of the XIII Hussars, 1911; an excerpt is posted on a B-P related site, but the original publication is a historical work dedicated to the war, not to B-P or Scouting. He is also mentioned in the autobiography of Victoria Cross recipient Percival Marling (not a Scouting related book) [6]. Also covered, in the press of the time on polo, and historical record thereof. He was a player and later an umpire after retiring from the army in 1905: [7] [8]. Of course, most of the google books hits are either scouting related [9] [10] [11] [12] or sexuality studies that brood over his relationship with B-P [13] [14] [15] [16], but the relationship is also mentioned in purely historical works [17]. This speaks more the academia of today that it does of him; see the comment of User:Baccyak4H in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th_nomination) on the matter of modern LGBT scholarship. Just because he might be famous today because of his relationship (in certain circles), that doesn't mean he isn't WP:notable for anything else; to quote from WP:N "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, ...". Pcap ping 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • His Boer War service is little different from any number of other officers. The London Gazette briefly records Mentions in Dispatches (which MacLaren was twice) and other awards. The biography is one of 100 similar sketches of Boer War DSO recipients whose names began with M. The regimental history chapter mentions dozens of officers by name. Kanguole 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does this mean? Do we delete notable rock bands articles because they're all just the same -you know, playing guitars, publishing albums, they're just another entry along with thousands others in history of rock music's books, etc.? --Cyclopia^talk 14:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This suggests to me that additional articles may required, not that this one should be going through AfD. DiverScout (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the brief notices in the London Gazette, his service record, 3 sentences in the regimental history and a passing mention in Marling's book do not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. The polo bit isn't worth mentioning. If his notability is to be established separately from the BP speculation, it will have to be based entirely on his role in Scouting. Kanguole 00:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - being the first manager of the Boy Scouts provides enough notability for retention. Mentions in the London Gazette and issue of DSO provide additional support to notability. Brownsea staff member and friendship with Baden-Powell provides a footnote to the same. "Other stuff exists" arguments would include many less notable military officers and individuals being listed on Wikipedia. The fact that a few people may wish to abuse the article for their own ends is certainly no grounds for deletion at all. The whole of Wikipedia will need to be deleted if that ever becomes an accepted argument in AfD. DiverScout (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good point. I remember that some vandal kept adding Obama to Red diaper baby in 2008 or so. Obviously nobody thought the whole article should be deleted just because it was targeted with that nonsense. Pcap ping 01:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is clearly aimed at expressing a particular POV regarding a friend of Baden-Powell. It is entirely appropriate to mention McLaren in the BP article, but the only claim of notability concerns the relation of the subject to BP. There are many military officers who have been wounded, and many people have participated in the Scout movement. There is no other content available regarding the subject except for the implicit invitation to the reader to infer an intimate relationship with Baden-Powell. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A particular point of view? The only thing mentioned in this article is a multiple-referenced statement that they were friends. Which POV is that? Or do you mean an allegation that is not even mentioned in the article? There are many officers who have done a lot less who have Wikipedia articles, but I cannot find others who were the first manager of the Scout movement or the first Secretary of the Boy Scouts Association as far as I am aware. I therefore assume that he was the primary holder of these posts in what was to become the largest global youth movement. Please correct me if I am wrong in this belief. DiverScout (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per DiverScout. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mostly per DiverScout. In general, the citations discussion McLaren in the article establish general notability. LotLE×talk 05:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bali ultimate. JBsupreme (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per DiverScout.-Phips (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pcap and DiverScout. Nsk92 (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No notability established apart from connections to Baden-Powell. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Whatever the motivations of the person who initially created it, this is now a decently-referenced article about the individual who became the first manager of the Boy Scouts movement and, as I'd forgotten when I posted my keep statement, the first secretary of the Boy Scouts Association. Please could some of the deletionists explain how these facts are non-notable? DiverScout (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. Easily enough coverage about him to warrant a mention, the only question is whether there is sufficient groups for an article separate from Baden-Powell. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a coatrack article for Robert Baden-Powell. There's nothing of any real significance indicating why it should be merged, either. The editor who created this article made it abundantly clear that it was to further an agenda {claiming he was a "significant other" to Baden-Powell with no evidence and "there is more to unearth on him" [18]). He was also known to misrepresent sources. If someone still feels McLaren is notable enough for an article, let them recreate the article from scratch. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the article history and at the talk page, you'll that that has already happened: the article has been rewritten, and every source checked. I'm all for deleting the gigantic syntheses Haiduc has left behind (see Pederastic couples in Japan for instance), but this was an article easy to fix, and it was already fixed. Pcap ping 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He seems notable to me, even if only of minor notability. If there are WP:COATRACK issues, they can be dealt with by removing offending text. The article appears to a well-sourced biography. It is hardly appropriate to merge one person inot another. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it seems that a lot of people are voting to delete this article without having read it and are requesting the deletion of an article that effectively no longer exists, written by an author who has been banned, to an agenda that is no longer being served. This all seems very strange to me. DiverScout (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The creator of this article has a history of misrepresenting sources and all his work should be deleted on suspicion - otherwise somebody has to go through all his edits. Any volunteers? Delete! Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water, as a quick look at the diff since that editor last edited, shows that the article has essentially been completely rewritten. There is nothing remaining that is in the least suspicious. I agree with the comment above from DiverScout. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People have been 'going through his edits', which is one reason why this article has been rewritten. Others are up at AfD also. You should judge this article as it is now.   pablo_hablo. 11:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still say delete it. The article still contains tendentious edits - Haiduc made the edit telling us that BP nicknamed McLaren 'The Boy' (here: [19]). That little bit of info becomes important in a small article such as this and it is intended to stir suspicions about the relationship between the two men. Haiduc created this article as a propaganda opportunity and not because the subject is noteworthy. McLaren was a friend of BP and he won the DSO (not notable in itself - my great-uncle won the Military Cross) and he played some role in the growth of the scout movement (not notable because we don't know what his role was - was it secretary, manager or what? Apparently he was ill at that time and it might turn out that he played virtually no role at all). This information can be included in other articles - it will not be lost if this article is deleted. Delete. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the first thing I wanted to delete when I saw this article. But his nickname is used in many (hagiographic) Scouting texts [20] [21], not at all related to LGBT studies (you can find a ton of those on a gbooks search). Even pure military history sources use it [22] [23] [24]. It's hard to make an argument it's POV when so many sources from different fields use it. Granted, the nickname of MacLaren is an important part in the "repressed homosexual" theory about B-P, which is discussed at Baden-Powell#Sexuality; the most recent three biographies of B-P include a discussion of that matter in connection with McLaren's nick name, only the 1964 one leaves it out, but still mentions the nickname [25]. Pcap ping 00:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now responding to other articles and not to this one. Your original response to this article, before you did the research, was correct and appropriate. This article was set up for propaganda purposes and we can't just paper over the cracks by changing a few things. The article tells us nothing about the heroism that won McLaren the DSO. It tells us nothing about the nature of the illness he suffered. It tells us almost nothing about his work for the Scout movement. It tells us almost nothing about his education, his family, his ancestry etc etc etc. It gives us no real context in which to understand his nickname properly. The article doesn't say enough to justify its own existence. It says enough to make us think McLaren might have been BP's bumboy. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I now see that you have made some significant changes to the article since I last looked at it, which somewhat strengthens your position about retaining it. Such late changes make it very awkward to argue anything here and it's not very helpful for a coherent debate. However, I think the article still needs a lot more info about McLaren in order to innoculate it against pederastic innuendo - a bigger picture of his life would put everything in context. I don't think there is enough info out there for that so I am staying with DELETE. Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Falls far short of independent notability, in particular, fails all aspects of WP:BIO. The sources have nothing more than trivial passing mentions of McLaren in context of Baden-Powell and his position with the Scouts (that also was conferred by Baden-Powell), and nothing about any independent actions or accomplishments. And his name is included on some long lists of military-related names and dates. None of that is sufficient for an article per WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [changed my comment after additional research - see below --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)][reply]
  • I agree about the military part, but am unsure about the scouting part. I think the question is whether he gets significant coverage in scholarly histories of the Scout movement. I haven't read those, but the article doesn't claim that he does. Kanguole 10:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to: Keep and continue verifying all sources added prior to the re-write. My initial searches did not show notability, but after doing some more research, I found that there is documentation of McLaren's role as one of the early icons of scouting. He was not nearly as well-known as Baden-Powell, but as one first scoutmasters and the first Secretary of the association, notable enough for an article. However, because the banned user Haiduc is known for routinely misquoting sources, any references that were initially added by him should be removed from the article until they can be verified. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jack, I don't agree with keeping this nasty little bomb. Look at my comments above about 'The Boy' and about the article's notability. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm changing my note on this yet again. I certainly agree about the disingenuous reasons that the article was started by Haiduc, and in my initial research I didn't find McLaren notable. Then I reversed my view on that when I found multiple scouting newsletters that mentioned him as the first Secretary in 1908, so that seemed notable. But the various arguments on the other side are compelling, and his notability does appear to be confined to very slight mentions in passing. So for now, I'm removing both my !votes and will just leave this as a comment. I'll post again after some more consideration, if the AfD is still open. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've now done more research and determined that my first impression was correct, McLaren does not meet notability requirements for a bio article. What led me astray in working on the Google searches is that his name is mentioned often in scouting sources, including his nickname of "the Boy", but in following the links and looking closer, I found that they all repeated the same minimal content, that he was Baden-Powell's friend, he was called "the Boy", and that he was appointed by B-P as first manager or secretary of the association. I could find no sources that went any deeper. Nothing about his actual work with the scouts. If he were notable, someone would have noted what he did. It appears that his name is in some early scouting papers, and then those same sentences propagated almost word-for-word through the organization as various local scouting groups put out newsletters and mentioned the early history of the Boy Scouts. But in all thouse sources, I found nothing at all in any greater depth than the mention of his name and position. That's not enough for an article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• References. At the last version edited by Haidoc there were only 5 references. The first two were added by other editors just before that. The third was to Rosenthal, page 48 and that is correct. The wording pointing to that reference has been changed since then. The last two references were to Jeal and they appear to have been checked by many people, although please see the talk page for information about page numbers changing from one edition of the book to another. I think we have removed all influence of Haidoc. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any significant coverage of MacLaren's role in the Scouting movement in Jeal or similar works? There's an impressive amount about his life in the article, but it all seems to have been assembled from fragmentary mentions in a wide variety of sources. Kanguole 23:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll let other anwers the part about scouting in more detail, but my imprssion is that there are scattered refs throughout Jeal's the book [26], but there's also about the same amount of info on his role in the siege of Mafeking in this history book; he is mentioned in more history books, see above, but this one has the most because it's about a specific battle. The only text that's exclusively about him is his military record on a site dedicate to the Boer War, also discussed above. Notability is somewhat marginal, but sufficient, I think. Pcap ping 01:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sufficient for what? His notability is dwarfed by the controversial issues surrounding BP's sexuality. That is why Haiduc created this article - it's territory he and others like him can dominate very easily with just a few edits. I find it interesting that the present edit (here [27]) contains no mention of sexuality at all. How very odd. Amphitryoniades (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So what? The fact that you are concerned that something "might" happen has totally no bearing on whether or not Kenneth McLaren is notable. The issue of Haiduc's motivation has absolutely no bearing on it either. Why are so many, mostly US, editors focussing their attention on this irrelevant issue? Even those against the article are noting that he is listed in a large number of texts. The only question is whether McLaren has notability. DiverScout (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sexuality is an unavoidable issue in a biography about McLaren. Why is there no mention of that issue in the present edit? Because we are voting on whether it should be kept or not. It's ridiculous. Somebody needs to edit the sexual issue back in so that we can see how it affects the article. Amphitryoniades (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• One reason why nothing has been added here is that those of who know the sources do not have time. After the deletion of the "Sexuality of B-P article" we are trying to find a better and shorter way of wording the section in the main article on B-P. When we agree on that we might agree on a form of words for this article. I really do think that some people are getting over excited about this. Haidoc's edits on B-P and McLaren in various places were certainly pushing a point of view but they were, I believe, far from the worst of his edits. His POV of B-P is held by quite respectable people. I do think we can and should now forget about Haidoc. Plenty of us will keep an eye on this article if it is kept. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should create and edit articles as if you won't be here tomorrow to look after them because someday you won't be. McLaren's lack of notability is a serious structural weakness when there are so many peripheral issues about BP's sexuality. Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say I would be around. I said plenty of people would be around. Wikipedia would quickly go to pot if nobody was watching the articles. We should not be determining the future of of articles on peripheral issues, i.e. Haidoc and his like. I really do not understand what all the fuss about BP's sexuality is. It is a normal think to go into biographies. This guy is not massively notable in world terms but he meets our requirements and readers of the B-P will want to learn a little more about him. I think we now have a better wording in the B-P article and a small part of that can go in this artcile, but I have to run now. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The current state of the article is a compilation of many details gathered from scattered mentions of the man in several sources, none of which apparently give the "significant coverage" required by GNG, except for coverage of Baden-Powell's relationship with him. Kanguole 14:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Here are some more examples of the problems with this article - why do the following statements of completely non-notable facts have so many footnotes? (Usually, that happens when someone is trying to prove something, in this case, Haiduc).

McLaren was brought in to help with the growing Scout movement in 1907, serving on the staff at the Brownsea Island Scout camp.[12][3][15][16]

OK, he served on the staff - that needs four footnotes?

McLaren first met Baden-Powell (also a 13th Hussars officer) in 1881. Although McLaren was 20 at the time, Baden-Powell nicknamed him "the Boy", on account of his appearance.[6][5][10][11][12]

So, B-P called him "the Boy" - that needs five foonotes?

The two became fast friends, their relationship being one of the most important friendships in Baden-Powell's life.[12][3][13]

Three footnotes to say he was an important friend to B-P?

This is the core of the the issue - it is B-P who was notable, not McLaren. Notability is not inherited. Those comments about their relationship can go in the B-P bio article.

Further -- McLaren is not mentioned in either of the articles about Boy Scout and Scouting (as of the current timestamp). Those articles have much detail about B-P and other people in the history of Scouting, but they don't include McLaren. McLaren is listed in the article on Brownsea Island Scout camp, but only in one sentence, stating that he was B-P's friend and assistant.

If McLaren were notable, there would be information about him to include in those Scouting articles, but apparently, no-one has found anything to write about his contributions to scouting. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First, in the first sentence, are you really saying that the people who added those references are linked to Haidoc, as I do not think he added them? If so, I suggest you retract that fast. That is exactly what I asked about higher up. It is quite unacceptable. Also the references are there because editors here kept asking for more references. Please assume good faith. Secondly, I am puzzled about one of your links in the last para. Boy Scouts is a disambiguation page. You may have confused it with Boy Scout, which was about the boy in Scouting, but has been moved to a better title. Scouting does cover some history, but like the Scout Association (the UK association), it says little about the early 2 years. There is a complex reason for this, unrelated to McLaren. B-P almost lost control of the movement he founded to his publisher, Pearson. The event has been rather down played in Scouting history. McLaren was made Manager to help B-P get control back. Even Pearson does not appear much in Scouting history, but as the publisher of "Scouting for Boys" and the Scout Magazine, his role was vast. I think new histories will begin to cover this better. However, my point is that it is not just McLaren that is not mentioned. Pretty well everything that happened in 1908 and 1909 is not mentioned. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I did not intend to imply any link of other editors with Haiduc, I apologize for the misunderstanding and I have struck out his name from my comment. Regarding the link to Boy Scouts, yes, that was a typo for Boy Scout, and as you noted, there is more history in the article on Scouting, but still not much.

Clearly, you know a lot about the history of the Scouting movement, and I respect your knowledge. When the new histories are published, we may find out that McLaren was notable, and then the article can be restarted. For now, as you wrote, "Pretty well everything that happened in 1908 and 1909 is not mentioned." - since those events were not reported, how can there be sources for an article? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that "Pretty well everything that happened in 1908 and 1909 is not mentioned" in wikipedia articles. It is not that there are no sources. It is just that there are few. If they were used on wikipedia to deal with other matters like the clash between B-P and his editor, the role of McLaren would be clearer to people. Those few sources have been used for this article. The role of Manager v Secretary needs to be resolved, but I think it is clear he was both - Manager when Scouting had no formal structure under Pearson, the publisher, and then adding the formal title of Secretary when what is now the Scout Association was formally incorporated and thus formally needing a Secretary. I feel sure we will find sources for that but I, for one, am busy with other things. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - so, this article needs to be deleted because McLaren is not mentioned in enough sources, then it needs to be deleted because, once sources have been added to satify these editors, he is mentioned in too many? But then you say that he's not mentioned in enough. Seriously? Secondly, how do failings in other articles relate to whether this one should be retained? Then the "Haiduc banner" is waved about again... As there has been no noticeable fresh argument for deletion for a long while, and the article has been rewritten and more than fully referenced to demonstrate the notability of the topic, is it about time to close this discussion? DiverScout (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources are being used to support just a few, basic facts and it doesn't matter how you multiply them - the article still lacks a coherent body of information and that's a measure of McLaren's low notability. Look at the positive side - You can create a new article about formative figures in the early history of the scouting movement, including all this information about McLaren. That topic would have more notability and more information than this one. Seeing what tigers you guys are, I don't doubt you'll do something like that if this article is deleted. Anyhow good luck and may the best argument win! Amphitryoniades (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fragmentary nature of the evidence is illustrated by this passage in the article: "According to biographer Tim Jeal, Baden-Powell convinced McLaren to be the Boy Scouts' first manager, but McLaren resigned that position in March 1908.[3] According to other accounts, when the Scout Association was formed in 1908, Major MacLaren became its first Secretary.[17][18]" His role in early Scouting is his main claim to independent notability, but is this all that is available? Kanguole 09:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus, the absence of deletion !votes outside of the nominator, and DGG's pointing out that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR requirements. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Laird[edit]

Paul Laird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Very poorly-sourced BLP of an apparently non-notable "musicologist" from Kansas University. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC either. UnitAnode 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I haven't done enough research to comment on notability, but why is "musicologist" in quotes? That's a real term, and he is a real professor in his field. [28] Zagalejo^^^ 23:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Simply because I wasn't exactly sure if that put him in the "music" category, or the "academic" category, or both. I didn't mean them as scare quotes, and I'll remove them if they're bothering you. UnitAnode 01:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, thanks for the explanation. You don't have to remove the quotes; I just wanted to make sure you weren't casting doubt on his credentials. Zagalejo^^^ 07:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment W. T. Kemper Fellowship for Teaching Excellence is a recognised academic award, however may not be sufficient for WP:ACADEMIC Rotovia (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Are the publications irrelevant to WP:ACADEMIC? I really don't know that guideline well, so I can't say whether he's the very model of a modern musicologist. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per directorship, many publications, positive 3rd party review. LotLE×talk 00:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep co-ed. of a major reference work such as The Cambridge Companion to the Musical indicates that he is regarded as on of the authorities in his subject. Ifanyone prefers to regard this as notability according to WP:AUTHOR, most notable academics in the humanities meet the criteria for both. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. General notability from news reports. Are there records of concert performances? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per DGG.--Milowent (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Drummond[edit]

Wayne Drummond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Youth soccer player, no national competitions. Freikorp (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete High school player, reported to have signed a professional contract, that's all. Maybe he will be more notable later. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete youth player with no notability shown, fails ATHLETE in having not played at required level, nothing GNG worthy. still a kid that may make it, but re-create if and when --ClubOranje^T 00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Walker's Name Tag America[edit]

Mike Walker's Name Tag America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unremarkable game.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Spam, no evidence of notability. Acroterion _(talk) 22:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. An affiliated external link, but no inline citations from reliable third-party sources.--Prodigy96 (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]

• Delete Cannot find any third-party sources for the subject to establish notability. Could also fall under something made up one day. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apart from the lack of notability, this is supposed to be a fun game? How the other half lives, indeed..... Per all the above. Peridon (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, lacks non-trivial coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weather forecast Anyone else think there's a possibility of SNOW? Peridon (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not a made-up game have submitted for Trademark it will be released and packaged as game in 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louiscaverly (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it's not released it comes underWP:CRYSTAL. Having a trademark doesn't indicate notability - just that someone has registered a trademark for something that may never even reach the market. And I can't see a market for this to need a trademark, anyway. Peridon (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:POLITICIAN. All cabinet officials are notable. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Massaquoi[edit]

Roland Massaquoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article is about a non-notable Liberian politician who was never elected to any office. This same stub of information is already included within Liberian general election, 2005. Onthegogo (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Automatically notable as a former agriculture minister. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former federal Minister. Thanks Eastmain for finding the sources for that and putting them in the article.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia – West Virginia rivalry[edit]

Virginia – West Virginia rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unsourced article about a made-up rivalry. UVA and West Virginia are not and never have been rivals. The two teams have only played 23 times in their history, never more than eight years in a row, and only once since 1985. B (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - completely unsourced, appears to be WP:Original research if not invented. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
• Delete as not notable. "Rarely-played rivalry game" is an oxymoron. Mandsford (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't appear to be notable. Its name is confusing, as well: if I hadn't read it, I'd think it to be something related to the creation of West Virginia in 1863. However, I believe that you can have a rarely-played rivalry game: if I remember rightly, the Chicago Cubs and the Chicago White Sox had a major rivalry in the twentieth century, although they went for several decades without playing against each other. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know enough about the VA-WV rivalry to comment on it. I was asked to comment on Cubs-Sox. They met in the 1906 World Series and started playing interleague games when the rest of MLB did so in 1997. In the 90 intervening years, the rivalry was more about North Side and South Side, as they seldom played each other, even in spring training as their camps were on opposite coasts. However, they did face each other in an exhibition "City Series" that ran off-and-on from 1903 to 1942; and from the 50s through the 70s or so they played an annual charity exhibition game. When the Sox won the 2005 World Series, the victory parade went only through the south side and stopped at the Chicago River in the downtown area. The WGN-TV announcer Dan Roan, a Cubs fan, who was covering the parade, took a mild shot at the south siders in regard to speculation about whether they would cheer the Cubs if the Cubs ever win another Series. There are also perennial complaints about which team gets "more favorable" coverage in the local newspapers. Mike Royko, who died in early 1997 and thus didn't get to see any of the meaningful games, was a loyal Cubs fan and was always poking fun at the Sox and their fans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind, two cross-town teams in a league of 30 teams are going to be far more closely related than two teams 5 hours apart in a league of 120 teams. Heck, until the interstate to Morgantown (I forget - I-68?) was built 20 years or so ago, it was further than that. There are ten teams that are closer geographically to UVA than WVU and plenty of them that they have played more often. You can certainly have rivalries where the series is on hold (eg, VT-WVU, Pitt-PSU, BC-Syracuse, etc) and you can have hostile fanbases that don't like each other, but the teams rarely/never actually meet on the field (VT-Tennessee), but WVU-UVA is neither of those. A game between UVA and WVU would interest neither fanbase any more than any other game against any other equity conference opponent would interest them. WVU would care just as much about playing UVA as they would about playing UNC, Mississippi, Indiana, WFU, or any other middle-of-the-road BCS team. The same goes for UVA. They just aren't rivals. --B (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in mind, per User:B. 72.151.55.27 (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? B wants the article to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Titus[edit]

Michael Titus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Autobiography of unremarkable photographer. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the nomination, this article is full of autobiographical fluff while yielding little information of the notability of the subject. In the absence of any quality, independent documentation, I must conclude that the subject is indeed not notable. TheMindsEye (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know for sure whether this is autobiographical, though the combination of biographical information with lack of sources for this does suggest it. Amid a lot of fluff hinting at notability there's no mention of substantial exhibition or publication, let alone critical commentary. And so, delete. -- Hoary (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The technique is recent, the subject is presumably active currently, so FUTON bias unlikely to be prevalent. No significant third-party references in web, books, or news archives. ^Bongo_matic 06:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMP Studios Entertainment[edit]

SMP Studios Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not a notable production company. Based in Albany, shows the company produces are seen on the local public access station there. All references lead back to the production company or shows website. Nothing on Google but those. Fails WP:N. NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I had PRODded this article with the remark, "I can find no significant coverage for this company, but it appears to be related to the articles discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/Steve Will and WP:Articles for deletion/Leader Of 3. Not a notable production company." I stand by that.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this in Google and Google News. I found zero sources in Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UncleBobby629 04:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)This company is not notable.--UncleBobby629 04:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taman Skudai Indah[edit]

Taman Skudai Indah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Technical nomination only. Original nominator's rationale:

Looks more like an advertisement, insignificant, stubby article --Rochelimit (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If this is just a subdivision without any sense of being a community, it is probably not notable. If this is a village, it probably is. Being "stubby" is not a valid rationale for deletion.- Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems no more than a housing development, without any independent existence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herrmann Ultrasonics, Inc.[edit]

Herrmann Ultrasonics, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Very little indication of notability as demonstrated by coverage in reliable secondary sources. Rd232 ^talk 09:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added some references. I think the article should be moved to Herrmann Ultraschall, the German parent company, since most of the references are about the company as a whole rather than its US subsidiary. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move per Eastmain. Also needs some trimming of promotional language. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there a complete absence of significant coverage to provide evidence of notability. All of the sources cited in this article are rountine announcements relating to the company's products, trade awards and factories. Self-promotion is not evidence of notability; there must be significant coverage that the company is notable in accordance with WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've rigorously searched, and can't find any nontrivial coverage of "Herrmann Ultrasonics", "Herrmann Ultraschalltechnik" or "Herrmann Ultraschal". The vast majority of Google News hits are press releases. The awards are sourced to the company's website, and are so minor that even the trade magazines don't report on it. One exception is the "helped {some other person/company} win the German Packaging award". This means nothing, as notability is not inherited, and also shows that the company has never won the German Packaging award itself. Abductive (reasoning) 06:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looking at the company profile on Manta [29] indicates that this is a small company with about 20-50 employees and an annual turnover of a few million dollars. Unless a company like that manages to attract a lot of independent coverage, it is likely to be insignificant. For once, I agree with Gavin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of audio trackers[edit]

List of audio trackers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unreferenced and apparently indiscriminate list. Most of the entries have no article here, and likely will never have one. WP:NOTDIR. We already have a reasonable article of tracker (music software) discussing the more notable ones. Pcap ping 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this indiscriminate directory listing for crying out loud. I totally missed this one somehow. JBsupreme (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It should improved though, with additional on each items' features, and restricted to bluelinks and redlinks, so that it meets wp:standalone¨¨ victor falk 06:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is no rule that every element of a list should have its own article. Wikipedia is THE place where lists are made most efficiently. No scholar can find all the data, only international community. Alone Coder (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, remove non-notable entries by normal editing. Polarpanda (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arezki Daoud[edit]

Arezki Daoud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable publisher of recently (1996) created online newspaper. Sources are a blog and his corporate websites. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep for now. Article was just created, Jan 25. Needs lots of work, yet there is the one reliable source, North African Journal. I don't know much on the region, but the source seems reliable. If I am shown otherwise I can change my vote. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• He is the editor of the North African Journal and owns it with his corporation. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi: Great vetting process guys. I am surprised of the quality of the editing. Good job. I agree with WildHorsesPulled.. more work needed. So I added references from academic (Global Journalist, Missouri School of Journalism/Freedom House), Think Tanks (Center for Strategic and International Studies), media references have been embeded in the edit, though not sure they fully meet publishing guidelines. The North Africa Journal has 14 years of Daoud's writing but I probably cannot share given your guidelines? Is there anything specific that needs to be added? I am looking at this entry, should we post an exact replica of this: Dave Edge. Would this format satisfy your requirements? The personal blog can be removed, but the Journal's site is critical. MBsianz, North Africa Journal is not a corporation. A corporation is a specific legal status that does not apply to The North Africa Journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazeni (talk • contribs) 02:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK Folks.. how do we move forward now? Is this deletion note perpetual? I mean are all entry targted by one editor doomed to never make it? Please let us what's missing here and we will supply. Otherwise, please make a speedy decision. If you don;t like, we have delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazeni (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a week is usually allowed for discussion about the possible deletion an article. At the end of that time, someone who was not part of the discussion will review the discussion and decide if a consensus was reached. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - does not begin to show verifiable references. With the exception of one interview, all the references are either from a source owned by or the article is written by Daoud himself. Comparing this to the David Wedge article is apples and oranges - the references for Wedge are all from independent, reliable sources. If the article can be reworked to show that type of sources, it may be sufficiently notable to keep. (GregJackP (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied per author request and WP:AGF, there being no content which would prevent its userfication nor policy rationale prohibiting it (i.e. WP:BLP). Article moved to User:Zwickertara/Earth, Inc. (book), and User:Zwickertara is cautioned that userfication isn't for holding, but for article improvement - it can't sit there forever. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Earth, Inc."[edit]

"Earth, Inc." (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable book. PROD removed by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails notability, appears to be self promotion. JBsupreme (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly userfy:WP:N, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL. Google shows no signs of notability for the subject as the book has not yet been released to the public. The article can be recreated when this publication gets significantly covered by reliable outside sources. — Rankiri (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The book hasn't been published yet, but is likely to be notable when it is, based on the publisher's reputation and the subject matter. The reference to the book's author, Gregory Unruh, here suggests that he is probably notable as well. So perhaps the article could be moved to the incubator or somewhere else so that it could be revisited once the book is published (April 2010, according to the article) and reviews of the book are available. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage in Google. I found zero souces in Google News. Fails WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Userfy as below The author has no article, the book has not been published yet (it appears to have been delayed from 2009 according to the publication date here), no other relevant Google Books or Scholar results; No relevant Google News results. All other mentions appear to be advance reviews or from shops which will be stocking it. I don't see that at the moment it meets Wikipedia:Notability (books) - specifically with regard to the fact that the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right (in "Not yet published books" in that guideline). Perhaps when it has been published, it might meet WP:N but at the moment it does not. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article is kept, it will need to be moved to Earth, Inc. (without the quotation marks) as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Article title format -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it might be best to use the title Earth, Inc. (book) as there is already Earth Inc. which might be confusing! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Creator has asked for this to be userfied (after I gave it as a possible solution) - see here. They feel that suitable references will be available in a few weeks. I cannot see anything too out of line to allow this to happen (although I will advise them to make it less advert-like!), so I am going to be bold and move it, and then request that the redirect page is deleted. When I've done that, I will come back here and close this discussion with the result "userfied". I won't do this until 20:00UTC (in about an hour and a quarter), so if anyone has any objections, could they let me know here? Thanks -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approve I believe this is a satisfactory outcome. It's not clear that the book will ever achieve notability, as the author does not appear to have, but the future will tell about that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy per Phantomsteve's suggestion. – ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The book is not notable & nothing notable comes up on google userifying the page may only be a waste of space and would eventually be nominated for an MFD ,it would be better if the creator of that article saves a copy of the article on his hard drive and restores it if it ever becoms notable--NotedGrant Talk 19:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As there has been a further 'delete', I will not move the article to user space. Closing admin: should you choose to userfy the article, could you move it to User:Zwickertara/Earth, Inc. (book) (or something similar) to remove the quotation marks and let the creator (Zwickertata) know? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the consensus below. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Redfield (Character)[edit]

Claire Redfield (Character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

An article copy-pasted from http://residentevil.wikia.com/Claire_Redfield

Non-notable, unsourced video game character.

NB: there is also another article under a redirect at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claire_Redfield&oldid=341298832 That article was redirected long ago and was briefly restored recently. The two editors involved are acting quite similar, IMO ;)

I'd be all for disinterring the redirected article and discussing them both here.

*Delete.* If kept as redirect, a history merge may be in order.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't appear to have been properly sourced when it was copypasta'd from wikia - so speedy delete as WP:CSD#G12. I would do this myself, but maybe I missed something? –xeno^talk 21:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably no longer a good speedy candidate, but some type of attribution is required here. –xeno^talk 23:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as insanely notable protagonist from multiple films, games, action figures, top ten lists, etc. I have been working on the character articles from this franchise with another user as discussed at User talk:A Nobody/Archive 26#Resident Evil and have merged some of our efforts from userspace to this article, i.e. it is no longer a mere copy of the Wikia article and by contrast include numerous references from reliable sources noting the character's significance. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Which criterion for speedy keep does this meet? I don't think this is a bad-faith nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyone with any knowledge of works of fiction and especially video games would know this character is notable. Anyone, even someone ignorant of fiction and video games, who did even remedial research on Google would see as much. Claire appears as the playable protagonist in three major video games: Resident Evil 2 (second best selling game in the hugely influential franchise with nearly five million copies sold), Resident Evil Code Veronica (a multi-system game), and the recent Resident Evil The Darkside Chronicles; TWO theatrically releaed live action movies; one animated DVD feature length movie; and once again over 50 Google Books hits confirm as much. She also appears as the protagonist in novelizations of the games/films and as multiple action figures as confirmed at amazon.com. A character familiar to millions of people around the world in the form of being a protagonist in what is unquestionably one of the top five most important survival horror franchises in history, having a major role in three films, appearing in novels, and as multiple action figures and when all of this is verified through dozens of reliable sources is notable by any reasonable definition of the term. Most importantly as far as why I would say "speedy" is that finding sources does not require going to the ends of the earth. Thus, declaring the subject "non-notable" is flat-out dishonest. Trying to delete something that is obviously improveable instead of following WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE is just plain lazy and inconsiderate. Deletion is an extreme last resort for that which absolutely cannot be improved, not for something that takes all of two minutes to confirm that secondary sources in books and magazines discuss in terms of development and reception across multiples, games, films, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So, you've just called me ignorant, dishonest, lazy and inconsiderate. Nice. Please see wp:no personal attacks. She's just a fuckin' video game character. Happy editing! Jack Merridew 16:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Resident Evil: Degeneration, Resident Evil: Extinction, and Resident Evil: Afterlife are movies, not video games. These four action figures are not video games either. These novels are also not video games. She is not "just a video game" character. --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  a VG char that's been mass marketed. It's all ephemeral tripe. You gonna acknowledge your other comments re myself? Sincerely, Jack Merridew 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  By dismissing a major character from three games, three films, four action figures, and two novels familiar to millions of people around the world and who appears in top ten lists as well as who is discussed in dozens of published books, you have proven my point. Yet again, once I focus on a particular area of fiction (User talk:A Nobody/Archive 26#Resident Evil, User:A Nobody#Userfied articles to work on, User talk:A Nobody/List of decisive battles#Resident Evil chronology, User talk:A Nobody/Archive 26#RE: RE, etc.), you suddenly have to target it as seen at User talk:A Nobody/Archive 27#Orphaned non-free image File:PlayStation 2 Resident Evil 4 covers.jpg 2. See all of his article edits from 20:05 2 February through 1:26 3 February: [30]; See all of his file edits from 17:38 1 February through 1:19 3 February (those are all Resident Evil character files): [31]. And if targetting areas I am interested in despite such warnings as this is not bad enough, you bite a new editor with the “puerile shite” line here, consistent with dismissing other works of fiction as "crap". And since swearing seems the approach of the day, you post immediately below me with a declaration of "bullshit" in yet another discussion. I keep trying to ignore you and so you keep going after anything I seem interested in. Yes, I can ignore nearly all of this persistent baiting, but I am not going to stand by as an obviously improveable article concerning something verfiable through dozens of reliable sources with unquestionable real world notability from a franchise and particular character I have been working on for over a year is targetted. --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You gonna acknowledge your other comments re myself? Curious, Jack Merridew 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I never thought I'd say this, but keep per A Nobody. Although the article still needs work, its no longer a copy-paste from Wikia, and useable sources have been included (if not properly integrated). The article needs to be moved to Claire Redfield though, there's no reason for the disambiguation. -- Sabre (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per A Nobody, also nom must have missed the rather large list of links as references. Ideally they would be integrated but this makes them non-inline sourced rather than unsourced. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Any issues with being overly in-universe or attribution to the other wiki are fixable. I see an article with sufficient independent sourcing to meet GNG. I do agree that a move to/history merge with Claire Redfield is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page! I have to admit that most of its stuff is from wikia, but I have spent 2 hours editing it to make it sound like it own, I have got pictures too, I am not letting Claire Lose her own page, her brother has one, why can't she! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalln (talk • contribs) 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really sure why. She used to have a page [32] but it was redirected to the List of characters in the Resident Evil series in July 2008. I guess there was consensus that she shouldn't have a page? There's nothing on the talk page about though, and as far as I can tell no AFD. I'll try to look into it and see what happened. Reach Out to the Truth 03:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually just one or two people decide something shouldn't exist, and they remove it without discussion. Or even if you have a discussion, and most are against a merge, they'll do anyway after arguing nonstop.[33] Dream Focus 08:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A rd is sufficient as the info can be provided there. No RS for establishing real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to the umpteen IGN sources there are numerous magazine articles kicking around out there dealing with RE2 and CV. The character is a/the primary character on two major video games, has recently been featured in another game (Darkside Chronicles), has appeared in one live action film and is going to appear in another, and also stars in the CGI flick Degeneration. That's just in terms of reception, we've already got info about her character originally being this 'Elza', there are several interviews kicking around with the actress who plays her in the film. There's enough here to assert notability in terms of reception as well as enough out-of-universe info available to square up the article. Someoneanother 07:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gamasutra [34] states "A live action spin-offs featuring the Claire Redfield character has also been suggested". Notable enough to be considered to be the main character in a film. Google news shows results. [35]Game Zone has her on a top 10 list. Plenty of book results for her as well. Dream Focus 08:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep THis looks like a standard sourced fictional character biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page! Claire Redfield is a very important Character, She is part of the story there is plenty of information on her, it will take a little bit to get it all, perhaps we can add trivia or quotes? and some more pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalln (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Smalln, but I've just removed the quotes you added, WP articles don't need trivia. As far as more images are concerned, we can't add any more than absolutely necessary because they're copyrighted and we need to assert fair use. Take a look at Nemesis (Resident Evil), which is what the article should resemble as much as possible. Someoneanother 16:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Someone Another, I was just trying. Anyone who wants to help form a resident Evil Force, Click here User:Smalln/ResidentEvilForce I will need some help.

• Keep. I may have done much of the work for the article, but I am objective, having merged several articles that I created. It clearly demonstrates a number of reliable sources in the external link section that have yet to be properly formatted into text. Many sources have ceom from searching through only a handful of sources - ie, IGN, GamesRadar, UGO, GameDaily, etc. I have not searched Metacritic, Google News, or Google Books for information on this character yet, both of which are commonly a strong source for information on characters in my experience. No valid reason to delete. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep major character in several video games - has some sources --> notable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Claire Redfield's PAGE! I would Like to Start a Rebecca Chamber Rebecca Chambers (Character) page too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalln (talk • contribs) 23:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as reasonably well-referenced page. Needs some slight cleanup and incorporation of the other references.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding a history merge, I started a discussion at WT:Articles for deletion/Claire Redfield (Character)#History mess. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major character in a major franchise depicted in multiple media. Edward321 (talk)
• Keep, searching Google News by "Claire Redfield" "Resident Evil" yields 353 hits. Abductive (reasoning) 07:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Clear keep consensus on this one.--Milowent (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K1000 PVC Rocket Motor[edit]

K1000 PVC Rocket Motor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable hobbyist rocket motor. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's for use in a hobby, doesn't mean it's not notable, and it is. Hit up google, and you can find hundreds of distinct articles referencing the motor. It's new and small, but this article should have a chance at life just like Binky's parents gave him the chance at life. It should be able to be expanded.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no source, a7, no content. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iskcon Youth Services Borivali[edit]

Iskcon Youth Services Borivali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable organization. Gaura79 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Gaura79 (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gaura. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nominator. Warrah (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laroo[edit]

Laroo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested PROD as WP is not a dictionary; I can't determine a proper CSD criterion. Possible neologism; unreferenced so not immediately verifiable. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as I suspect this is actually an attack page. In any event, a strong, strong delete per WP:HOAX, WP:NEO, WP:V, etc. Needless to say, this is totally unverifiable, and compare the results at UrbanDictionary.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a last name; there is a jazz musician etc. with this name. Article appears to be completely bogus. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (housekeeping), page already deleted by User:Tbsdy lives. Non-admin closure. —  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ K1000[edit]

DJ K1000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable musician. Musician's own myspace page is only reference provided. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Does not appear to be notable, CSD A7 should apply. JBsupreme (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete – No GHITS of substance and zero GNEWS. Article lacks references. ttonyb (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete - no source, a7, no content. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, an obvious case for ((db-band)).  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Patten[edit]

Dave Patten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Submitting after I declined PROD, since it has already been deleted once. Concern is that this gentleman doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, with additional concerns of inadequate sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence it meets notability guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Other than the human-interest piece in his town paper from his senior year in high school (cited in the article), I cannot find any coverage of Dave Patten in a reliable source. That article by itself is not enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO ("multiple non-trivial published works").  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable per WP:MUSICBIO(GregJackP (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete non notable musician, no reliable 3rd party sources, none found and the first ref [36] is a pronunciation guide for the name "Dave".—Sandahl (♀) 23:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claes Joachim Olsson[edit]

Claes Joachim Olsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete. Non notable biography per ONE EVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. He is only covered in news sources because he was unfortunate to be killed in action. He only has an article on Norwegian wikipedia because it is a tragedy to them. If he hadn't have died I ask, would any sources even mention a young soldier? So he was a young Norwegian soldier who happened to one of the few from his country who got killed. Tragic and newsworthy, but encyclopedia worthy? It might be different if he was a general or even an officer of some ranking who had a notable military career. But if you whittle down the condolences from various people and that he was "well liked" you are left with a non notable biography because he was only notable for one incident. He could be briefly mentioned in a Norwegian army or even Norwegian forces in Afghanistan article but this fails our biography requirements. If it doesn't then it would become acceptable to have an article on any soldier who died in a conflict regardless of ranking. Whilst there are reliable sources that exist mentioning this solider because he died, I really think this becomes invalid when it is based on One event. We are not a newspaper.

The article also claims: Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said that "While we always know that this mission can be dangerous, the loss of a Norwegian soldier really into me." Really?

What I propose we do is instead create an article Norwegian forces in Afghanistan and mention the event. That would be the appropriate thing to do amidst other information on the forces in the country and history which rarely gets reported in the world press. That would be more useful to an encyclopedia. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The fact that the Norwegian Wikipedia has a long article suggests that this death is particularly significant to Norway. This may be the first Norwegian combat death in Afghanistan or something close to the first, which would suggest rather more notability than would be the case for a Canadian or British soldier killed there. I agree, however, that Norwegian forces in Afghanistan would be worth creating. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tragic yes, notable no. GcSwRhIc (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.
• Delete, the Norwegian Wikipedia is not (and should not be) the benchmark of anything. Not a notable person; isn't more notable by representing a small country. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Telemark Battalion. Norwegian forces going to international missions are often from this battalion, the soldier is from this battalion, and our article for the Telemark Battalion isn't too long. It can handle the extra. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "the extra"? The entire article? Geschichte (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A summarized version could be mentioned in Telemark Battalion. However most of the condolences are unnecessary. A brief summary of what happened, Olsson's death and prime minister comment etc is all that is needed here. As a biography, this article is way off being notable. I recommend a redirect to Telemark Battalion and a brief summary in the history. I have included a brief summary in the Telemark Battalion now which includes all of the main points. That is the way an encyclopedia should cover it... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 23:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse User:Himalayan Explorer's moves here. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nom. Rettetast (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not a reflection on Olsson, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and as tragic as this soldier's death is, dying in combat does not make one notible according to Wikipedia policy. Rapier1 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rapier1. With no disrespect to Mr Olsson and his family, he doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and there are many other instances of articles on casualties of recent wars being deleted on the same grounds. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as Himalayan Explorer's edit of Telemark Battalion gives sufficient encyclopedic coverage of Olsson. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rapier1. I also support the idea of Norwegian forces in Afghanistan as a clearly notable subject, if anyone wishes to take it on. Tomas e (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. According to http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordmenn_drept_i_tjeneste_under_krigen_i_Afghanistan_%282001-%29 Olsson was the fifth Norwegian soldier to be killed in Afghanistan. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Telemark Battalion per above or, barring that, Delete (GregJackP (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. Does not satisfy any criteria at WP:MILPEOPLE. WWGB (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTNEWS, other guidelines, and project specific recommendations. Some of the information could be added to Telemark Battalion, but certainly not a complete merge. ^Bongo_matic 03:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Avril Lavigne's 4th Album[edit]

The result was speedy delete and salt, this is a clear and unambiguous WP:CSD A7. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne's 4th Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article consists entirely of misinformation in accordance with WP:HOAX and WP:HAMMER. Currently, all verified information on the fourth album is located on the Avril Lavigne article. Any title or tracklisting exists as supposition, conjecture, or is the creation of unreliable sources. Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per WP:CRYSTAL. Am I crazy, or was another article like this put up for deletion just last week? Umbralcorax (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wp:CRYSTAL and several previous AfDs (the last one of which was what Umbralcorax was alluding to). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm not as crazy as I thought. ;) Umbralcorax (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was last week's Pink Crust, and then there was "Avril Lavigne's untitled fourth studio album" that people kept CSD'ing because it kept popping back up. I didn't add a CSD template to this one because I wasn't sure how "exact" of a similar article it had to be. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could've added and let an admin figure it out. Ahh well, this debate looks like its heading in the same direction anyway. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdus Sattar Ghazali[edit]

Abdus Sattar Ghazali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete. Yet another unsourced WP:BLP from 2007. There are a number of published books, yes, but what I'm not finding is non-trivial coverage of this person from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable journalist and author, ton of Google News Archive hits for the man. Rebecca (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep searching google news for his name, عبد الستار غزالي , translated courtesy of google yields 136 hits. JBsupreme (talk), you're not doing your homework. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Carthew[edit]

Jason Carthew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete. This article was tagged unsourced in January 2008, but in actuality has been unsourced since its inception, way way back in June 2007. Subject is a "film director and teacher" from Australia and somehow manages to get zero matches on Google News Archives. Seeing as this is an Australian subject, not someone from a third world country or predominantly foreign-language speaking country, one would expect to find at least some form of coverage if the subject were notable. I contend that not only does this fail the very basics of WP:BLP but WP:BIO and GNG as well. JBsupreme (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, WP:V. The only pieces of evidence of his major award are on Wiki mirrors. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It looks like his "most well know [sic]" film A.I.W.U. was shown at the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival, but that by itself does not confer notability. I'm not finding any other significant information.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the most well known production is not so. RFerreira (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete without prejudice toward recreation. Yes, his 9 minute film A.I.W.U. CAN be found, and his background as a teacher sourced, but there is not much else. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Wikipedia space; see Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of online newspaper archives[edit]

List of online newspaper archives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article is basically a mix of improper external links and generalized listcruft. Following WP:EL, much of the scope of this article would have to be removed, since the purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to lead out of Wikipedia but rather to provide an encyclopedic overview of a particular topic. This EL cleanup would leave only an unverified laundry list remaining, which is problematic in itself. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links nor should it be used as a directory for topics such as this. While this material might be acceptable at a site such as DMOZ, it is beyond this project's scope and policies. ThemFromSpace 19:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, violates WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOT a directory. JBsupreme (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apart from WP:NOT concerns, can you think of how many MILLIONS of newspaper archives there are on the internet, even if you only consider the major papers such as the New York Times? There is no way that a page like this could ever work on Wikipedia.--_LittleGordon 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and above. And because my state wasn't listed. (joke) —Mike Allen 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete I never would have found the archive I was looking for if I hadn't found this page -ZelG 13:41 2 February 2010 (MST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.141.238 (talk)

Edit Conflict See WP:NOT--Prodigy96 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my statement to ZelG (68.105.141.238) just above.--Prodigy96 (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete...and she listens...to the sound...of....WP:NOT!--^Trust_Me^THROW! 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete interesting Afd this one. Just one thing Trust Me Throw, if we are talking about newspapers, wouldn't "she" read to the vision of WP:NOT instead of listen to the sound of it?--$$$BILLION DOLLARS$$$ 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Funny guy. lol :) It's a figure of speech, thus why "she" listens. And in case you are wondering the "she" is nobody in particular. Not me anyway, I am male. But I see what you mean. Again, lol :)--^Trust_Me^THROW! 21:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved to Wikipedia space. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good move. Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. I guess this one can be closed then? JBsupreme (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes! This could come in handy for research. I concur with Richard. —Mike Allen 21:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold. I like that.--Prodigy96 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay rosenwald[edit]

Lindsay rosenwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Blatant self-promotion. More a CV loaded with peacock terms than a bio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is indeed shamelessly promotional. If the individual does meet WP:BIO (and I'm not sure he does), the article would need a complete rewrite anyway. Peacock (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia isn't the place to post your résumé. Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Peacock. RFerreira (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have rewritten the article to be more neutral and added some references. Please check if this makes more sense now. Thank you. J.D. (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO and is still spammy. The references that have been added are not sufficient - one is a self reference from his own company and the other just to FINRA's home page. There does not appear to be the required "significant coverage in reliable sources". ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* I've done a small research and added several references that I believe are trusted and independent resources. Would appreciate your thoughts. If I add articles on the companies owned by Dr. Rrosenwald and link them to the person, would this be a good idea to make the article even more valuable? Thank you. J.D. (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Hawks[edit]

John D. Hawks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:PROF. Entire text of article is "John Hawks was a Ph.D. student of Milford Wolpoff and is an associate professor at University of Wisconsin–Madison. He writes about human evolution at john hawks weblog, with introgression as one focus." Highest cited paper: 21. h-index is about 5. Prodded by another user, deprodded by article creator. Abductive (reasoning) 19:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "john hawks" in Wikipedia gives 40 results of which over 20 places are references to this Hawks. Of these 9 articles and a number of talk pages are currently linking to the article. How is someone notable enough to be mentioned over 20 times in articles and talk pages yet not considered notable enough to have an article for those references to link to?

Please explain the meaning of "Highest cited paper: 21. h-index is about 5.". Google Scholar search gives 153 results, and examining only the first page of 10 to start, all 10 are authorship by this person and the total number of citations to the 10 papers is over 500.

Is the problem that you are searching for "John D. Hawks"? In fact the man lists his name almost everywhere as "John Hawks". John Hawks was already a redirect to John Twelve Hawks and I made it into a disambig instead of putting the article on the paleontologist at John Hawks, which is a mistake in retrospect. I've never heard of John Twelve Hawks (and I would be interested in hearing the reasoning for his notability) but at the least he normally uses his name as "John Twelve Hawks" not "John Hawks".

More qualitatively, Hawks is one of the major figures in the debates on multiregional evolution, Neanderthal evolution, rate of human evolution in current and recent times, Boskop Man, Homo floriensis, and other topics. Among nontechnical publications, he has been published in Slate magazine. Also, here is a video of him speaking at Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

The editor who originally tagged the page, apparently simply because Hawks's rank is assistant professor (interestingly a look at that editor's bio shows he is a full professor himself!), has not made any further objection or comment since I explained notability and pinged him at his talk page. User:BaronLarf for his part replied on his talk page that "User:David Eppstein added a notability template on Jan. 22; I simply added additional issues tags.", apparently disclaiming responsibility for the assertion of nonnotability, yet insisted on keeping the article tagged.

The article is still a stub, however it is properly listed as a stub in the proper subject area. Being a stub does not in itself dictate deletion as there are of course lots of stubs which are taking some time to be filled out; just check its category and parent categories.

In short this seems to me to be mechanical application of overly strict criteria. --JWB (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good to hear from the article creator. I searched by "JD Hawks", but it seems that there are more articles by "J Hawks". The additional articles bring the h-index to about 11. However, the highest cited paper has MH Wolpoff as its first author, as do many of the other papers. Eliminating those, the h is about 8. Abductive (reasoning) 22:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, is there some threshold set for h or number of citations, and where are you computing/obtaining this index? Also, would this suggest that material on Hawks go into Milford Wolpoff instead? He is Wolpoff's intellectual heir in a sense, but is a separate individual. And should coauthored papers be counted as zero instead of some fraction? Needless to say, while the first author's fame helps bring notice to a paper, the second author has usually made major intellectual contribution. --JWB (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See h-index. Everybody who comments at these AfDs has their own standards regarding citation counts, h-indices and the letter and spirit of WP:PROF. I included the h-index numbers for their convenience. Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at h-index (which ironically is itself tagged) and it says nothing about throwing out citations based on a famous first author. --JWB (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but in the AfD discussions people have made this argument. Think about it; this work is by Wolpoff, and the citations it garnered were based on his reputation and what he wrote. Abductive (reasoning) 21:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases the second author does most of the work and the first author supervises and sponsors, although I certainly wouldn't assume this (or the opposite) in this case. With no specific knowledge, you are merely speculating and taking the most convenient case for your position.

I read through a good deal of the science AfD discussion list that David Eppstein linked at the bottom, and did not find any instances of this argument you are attempting to make. --JWB (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Within Wikipedia, we have no way of knowing if these instances of Hawks' name were inserted in good faith, and even if they were, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. You should present evidence that Hawks is a major figure. I'll bet that other professors in the fields of "multiregional evolution, Neanderthal evolution, rate of human evolution in current and recent times, and Boskop Man" have equal or higher citation counts. Abductive (reasoning) 22:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is of course not a source, however consistency in what is and is not worthy of mention seems desirable. If we leave the mentions of John Hawks as redlinks what does this accomplish?

Actually examining the mentions of Hawks should give you some idea of their legitimacy.

All of those four fields mentioned are not large ones. If there are other professors well known in those fields with similar citation counts, no doubt they are likely to be notable too, so I'm not sure where that line of reasoning is supposed to lead. --JWB (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolpoff's h-index is around 31. Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are proposing this as a standard. Wolpoff has been active for many decades. I think Hawks has been active for one decade. In terms of thinking about current issues in evolution Hawks is now even more visible. --JWB (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - in particular does not satisfy WP:PROF. Even for a stub there's no indication of why he's notable, e.g. what his contribution to the field of paleoanthropology is. None of being a student of someone notable, being an associate professor or having a blog count towards notability. As for publications it's usually a requirement of being an academic to regularly publish stuff that gets cited - he would an exceptional professor if he had none. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow any of the topics listed and you will find this is one of the major players. If you're unwilling to look at these fields at all, you have no basis to judge except for generalities like "no assistant professors". --JWB (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the arguments here seem to be even attempting to claim "I have a little familiarity with the evolution field and there are X number of people more prominent than Hawks". The assumption seems to be "You are presumed to be not acting in good faith, you have to prove notability to me without me knowing anything about the subject fields, dozens of existing references to the person already in Wikipedia are presumed to be spam unless you can prove otherwise, also without me having to know anything about these scientific fields, and hundreds of citations are presumed to be nonnotable, without being able to cite any specific standards, policies or statistics supporting this." This presumption of guilt is completely backwards and contrary to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. --JWB (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are all here to improve WP. No-one is accusing anyone of not acting in good faith or being guilty of anything. It is not my requirement but WP's that articles should be on notable topics, established by references to secondary sources. In particular WP cannot be used to establish notability, so wikilinks or mentions on other pages do not make him notable. As for expertise, there is no such requirement to contribute or participate, but this is about WP:N, WP:GNG or WP:PROF, not whether any particular theory of paleoanthropology is correct or being correctly represented.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, WP:CREATIVE#Failure to explain the subject's notability says: If an article does not explain the notability of its subject, try to improve it by: *Rewriting it yourself *Asking the article's editor(s) for advice. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources: *Look for sources yourself *Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources. --JWB (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Add something to the article beyond the two sentences that are there, make the article show notability on its face, and the chances of the article getting tagged for notability or deletion will go down. Why continue debating here rather than just fixing it?--BaronLarf 09:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Try looking for John Hawks on google. If you want to separate away from other people with similar names, then add a key word from his field like evolution. That 30 second search should be enough. He is clearly well-known and frequently cited outside of Wikipedia, including in publications that are not blogs. (A quick browse and I see Scientific American, Discover Magazine, The Sydney Morning Herald, MSNBC etc, and this is in addition to all the blogs which mention him and all the academic big name journals where he is mentioned. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs don't count. Being quoted as part of a story should be weighted less than a story about the person; for a blogging evolutionary biologist example see Massimo Pigliucci. The New York Times did an entire story on his wedding, for Pete's sake. Abductive (reasoning) 20:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about notoriety as a celebrity, maybe having your wedding covered counts. Needless to say this shows nothing about your contribution or significance in science. --JWB (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, the New York Times covers the wedding of a scientist, but they did so because he is famous for some other reason? No. Pigliucci's citation record looks like this: 1064, 421, 191, 124, 107, 106, 104, 84, 75, 73, 65, 61, 58, 56, 55, 48, 47, 44, 40, 39, 37, 35, 35, 35, 33, 33, 33, 32, 31, 30, 24, 23, 23, 23, 22, 20, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 16, 14, 14, 13, 12, 12, 12, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 9, 9, 8, 8, 7, 7.... His h-index is about 30. Abductive (reasoning) 10:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you mention the wedding then? Judging from Massimo Pigliucci, he is most famous for taking on creationists, which is politics rather than producing new scientific results. His wife's fame is also covered. His actual scientific work gets a two-sentence paragraph saying only what fields he is in, and two article citations, the ones with "Phenotypic" in the names. This is about equal to what is currently in the Hawks article, or even a bit less in terms of papers with scientific results. His blog is listed as being about rationalism/secularism/fighting creationism; compare Hawks's which takes on complex specific open issues in human evolution and is the only place I've seen where these arguments are being explained to the public.

By the way, reference 1 backing up "is a professor at Stony Brook" in Massimo Pigliucci is [37] which in fact does not list him as a professor at all. Reference 2 does list him as department chair at Lehman, but in philosophy, not science. --JWB (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the Pigliucci article. AfD discussions address the potential article, not the existing article. Abductive (reasoning) 19:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or let's look at Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, a big name in human migration. His citation record looks like this: 2658, 2410, 2070, 1782, 1072, 654, 643, 614, 612, 547, 540, 531, 485, 477, 440, 378, 341, 283, 278, 275, 268, 266, 256, 253, 252, 230, 222, 218, 214, 196, 191, 190, 187, 185, 180, 173, 166, 165, 165, 157, 152, 151, 149, 143, 140, 138, 133, 130, 126, 120, 119, 119, 117, 116, 111, 106, 105, 104, 99, 98, 95, 93, 93, 92, 91, 91, 86, 86, 84, 81, 79, 78, 78, 77, 76, 76, 75, 75, 74, 74, 74, 74, 71, 71, 71, 67, 65, 65, 64, 63, 60, 59, 58, 57, 57, 55, 55, 55, 54, 52, 52, 52, 51, 50, 50, 50, 49, 49, 49, 48, 47, 45, 45, 44, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 41, 41, 40, 40, 40, 39, 38, 38, 38, 37, 35, 34, 34, 34, 33, 32, 32, 32, 32, 31, 31, 31, 31, 30, 30, 30, 29, 29, 29, 28, 28, 28, 28, 28, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 26, 26, 26, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 24, 24, 24, 24, 23, 23, 23, 23, 22, 22, 22, 22, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 20, 20, 19, 19, 19, 19, 18, 18, 17, 17, 16, 16, 15.... His h-index is around 76. These guys are notable. Hawks is not. Abductive (reasoning) 10:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalli-Sforza is in fact the biggest name in that field by far, though more because of priority rather than because he is doing most of the current work. Again, this is a ridiculous standard. You would have Wikipedia cover only the top couple of people in a field.--JWB (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something. I wrote a comment which mentioned that this person was discussed by "Scientific American, Discover Magazine, The Sydney Morning Herald, MSNBC etc" and the reply which came back was "blogs don't count"? The approach being taken here turns the Wikipedia guidelines on their head by making this an argument amongst Wikipedians about how important this person is as a scientist. This is not our job. He is notable for whatever reason you like to give, and the reason is not important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this comment. Being quoted in these sources is not the same as being the subject of a secondary source. Abductive (reasoning) 19:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding his blog, it is notable by WP:WEB#Criteria. --JWB (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which of he criteria? At I'd guess it's 1, i.e. neither award winning or distributed in other media, in case what are multiple non-trivial works is the blog the subject of?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Andrew Lancaster said just above, "A quick browse and I see Scientific American, Discover Magazine, The Sydney Morning Herald, MSNBC etc" --JWB (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but as my own web searches turned up nothing please add the references to the article to establish notability. The article still has none to reliable second party sources, only a link that searches first party sources, returning results that are open to interpretation so are of limited use.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I tagged the article for PROD two weeks ago, but User:JWB assured me that the subject was indeed notable. (There is a discussion of this here:User talk:BaronLarf#John Hawks). Despite all of the assertions and claims of notability, the article still consists of two sentences which do not show that the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:PROF. --BaronLarf 10:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the information in these two discussions (or that we can dig up now) that is judged to be appropriate and sourceable can go in the article, so please judge that set of information and help expand it. If the article is being deleted for subject nonnotability or a particular point is judged to be not appropriate, there is no point in adding it to the article. --JWB (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - if the article is improved so it clearly demonstrates the subject's notability I will be happy to support keeping it, and that's the best outcome for this AfD discussion - better than deletion or the article being kept but unimproved.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if the discussion was really about whether the article is too short, then this is true, but that does not seem to be the subject of discussion? I would imagine that no one has been working on the article, because it is being argued that it should be deleted on bases other than just being short? This discussion seems a circular and unconstructive to me. If people are worried about the article being short and saying they want to give it a chance to grow, then I think they should not be threatening to delete it for non notability?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I did not nominate this because it was too short. I remain convinced that an associate prof whose highest cited paper was written by his advisor, no awards, a low h-index, no secondary sources, etc isn't notable. Abductive (reasoning) 18:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew Lancaster (in Sci Am, Discover, etc). And also per the several good external sources already in the article. The article is pretty stubby now, but that just means it needs improvement, not that the underlying person is not notable. LotLE×talk 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It is sometimes very difficult to distinguish the importance in a project of the professor and the graduate student or postdoc. I don;t think any general assumption can be made. The degree to which advisors typically get involved in the projects varies very greatly from advisor to advisor, and with many advisors, from project ot project. The extent to which an advisor puts his name on such papers also varies--James Watson made a point of never putting his name on. The position of authorship varies even more. To know the relative significance can often not be told from the published work; it is often necessary to know the specific situation. It's not until the assistant professor level that it becomes obvious to outsiders whether or not a former student can do important work independently. I have no idea who has the main responsibility for the idea or the execution--but I do see that it is very important work, and I think there's enough credit for both of them. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Still only brings his h-index to 11. Abductive (reasoning) 04:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What about his contributions to the multiregional hypothesis? Well, I went to the trouble of collecting all the citations for "multiregional hypothesis" and "multiregional origin" and got the following result. Hawks' three on the list are given in bold: 1353, 531, 433, 405, 365, 315, 272, 204, 202, 201, 184, 175, 161, 159, 156, 155, 147, 146, 136, 129, 126, 108, 104, 94, 91, 90, 88, 74, 72, 67, 67, 62, 61, 60, 58, 57, 56, 56, 53, 53, 48, 42, 42, 41, 37, 36, 35, 35, 34, 31, 30, 29, 29, 29, 29, 28, 28, 27, 25, 24, 24, 24, 24, 21, 20, 20, 18, 18, 16, 15, 15, 15, 13, 11, 10, 10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0. So there are 8,609 total citations, of which only 97 are citing Hawks. 28 papers are cited more than Hawks' highest, and that one has Wolpoff as a first author too. Or how about Homo floriensis? Hawks hasn't published any papers on H. floriensis; at least according to Google Scholar. Can User:JWB explain how s/he came to make this claim? Abductive (reasoning) 11:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Papers relevant to multiregional do not necessarily have that name. Looking at the top 10 GS results for John Hawks, several are analyses of recent African origin or "replacement theory" and mention those terms. The ones on Neandertals are relevant when they cover introgression. Actually, it appears you are missing papers where "multiregional" appears in the article text but not the title, as seen in this search. As far as prominently using the phrase "multiregional evolution" itself, Wolpoff has done this most. --JWB (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are very many physical anthropologists. A considerable number of them are notable. A few are famous. TAbductive, you cited Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He's famous. Agreed that Hawkes is not at his standard. he criterion for WP:N is notable, much less than famous. Wolof is more highly notable than Hawkes--no question about it. That does not mean that Hawkes is not notable also. The multiregional hypothesis is not exactly a recondite academic question--it is a long-standing question that has in the past been very much involved with the question of racial superiority. It is therefore of great interest, and many notable people have worked on it. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that Wolpoff coined the term "multiregional" before DNA studies provided quantitative evidence of recent African origin. Today the question is whether there is any detectable genetic inheritance from earlier Homo off the main line, which is referred to as introgression into the main line. Papers addressing the latter may or may not use the word "multiregional". --JWB (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hawks is a commentator and secondary source on the Flores hobbits story. Access to the actual fossils is limited, which is one of the issues he discusses. Abductive, recommend you read the blog if you want to be able to make an informed evaluation of his role in the listed debates. --JWB (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can blog, and I don't have to read his blog to dismiss his blog utterly. My informed evaluation is highly detailed; Wolpoff is the first author on Hawks' most highly cited papers, many people have higher citations in all of Hawks' fields. Hawks is not a full professor. Therefore he fails WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 05:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep after reading the long discussion on this page. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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