< 3 August	5 August >

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

The result was keep. The band has garnered some coverage and recognition from third-party, reliable published sources and professional blogs such as Billboard magazine, the official Doctor Who magazine, io9, Digital Spy and Wired... Also, the fact that they have had 2 albums released under a well-known indie label, one of which was featured on the Heatseekers chart, makes the band just about qualified under WP:BAND. Improvement on article is still much needed. @pple complain 23:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon Circuit (band)[edit]

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

The claims for notability of this subject appear to stem solely from their recent #23 listing on the Top Heatseekers chart. However, I'm not sure that this alone is enough to justify their notability: the Heatseekers chart isn't listed at WP:GOODCHARTS, and I can't find any reliable source that archives it, meaning that it is impossible to verify this claim. The ref given in the article doesn't mention Chameleon Circuit at all, and all other refs are from self-published sources, e.g. YouTube, Dailybooth, and websites from members of the band. The few reliable sources that I could find that mention the band name (such as The Telegraph, Digital Journal, Gazette & Herald and Newsround) seem to be referring to an actual chameleon circuit (i.e. the component in Doctor Who) and don't seem to be about this group. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many starting bands chart on the Heatseekers. The band charted on a national chart, and that is a requirement for notability. As for the fact that it isn't archived, Heatseekers chart is physically published every week, so it is print. Not everything has to be on the internet. Billboard archives their charts after about 6 months I believe. As far as other sources, the band had an article written up about it in the official Doctor Who magazine and David Tennant said positive things about them.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm going to find some out-side sources.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found some outside sources; Upon their first release in 2009, the band were covered on well-known sites such as io9 and Den of Geek, the latter writing a full review of the album and interview with the band. Also, the Doctor Who Magazine writer Benjamin Cook, who also interviewed Chameleon Circuit, has posted a copy of the article on his own site. Chameleon Circuit have been notable for a while, it's only now with a new release that the band is evident of being more than just a Charlie McDonnell side-project. --Anglerfish6 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess that I know precious little about the US's Billboard charts, but, from what I can tell from its article, the Top Heatseekers chart bears a pretty strong resemblance to the UK's Indie Breakers chart, ie. it's quite a minor chart that doesn't get a huge amount of promotion. Does a single week at a very low entry on a very minor chart automatically make an act notable? I'm sure that many starting bands chart on the Heatseekers, but I would doubt that this would immediately establish their notability for a WP article. Besides, like I said in the nom, the Top Heatseekers chart isn't listed at WP:GOODCHARTS. I'll take your word for it that the charts are achived on the web – what's the URL of the site? Regards, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The chart is archived on the Billboard site, about 6 months after a new act has charted. I remember Spose had a problem like this when "I'm Awesome" was a Top 40 hit, but it couldn't be verified until after several months. However, the band's peak position was written in print in a copy of Billboard Magazine, and that is still reliable.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepLet's be honest here. This is Wikipedia, therefore it is not super reliable. Rather than arguing whether or not this Trock band (Trock being the genre) deserves its own page is a moot point. Does it really take up that much space on the server? The info on it is reliable enough for those who want it. How about we just keep this page and keep on making sure that people don't write lies about George Washington because we all know there's going to be that kid in middle school who gets all his info the night before the essay is due from Wikipedia. CHAMELEON CIRCUIT STAYS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.42.73.99 (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anglerfish6's references above clearly satisfy WP:BAND criterion #1, and therefore WP:GNG. gnfnrf (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anglerfish6's references, several additional references added, and the fact the band charted on a Billboard chart. This article clearly satisfies WP:BAND criteria #1 (multiple references), criteria #2 (charted on a music chart), criteria #5 (released albums through famous indie label DFTBA Records, criteria #6 (band is made up of Charlie McDonnell and Alex Day (Musician), noted vloggers), and criteria #7 (founded the "Time Lord Rock" genre)--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure that I buy any of those arguments: what makes Den of Geek a reliable source? I've never heard of io9 – does it contain the editorial oversight and the fact-checking that WP requires of reliable sources (I'm genuinely asking, as I have no idea)? I've listed my thoughts on the Heatseekers chart above – while of course I understand that not all reliable sources are online, it seems to me that we need to be particularly diligent regarding biographies of living people, of which the Chameleon Circuit article would be one. Time Lord Rock and DFTBA Records do not seem to yet be notable in and of themselves, so we can't use them to justify CC's notability. Finally, while McDonnell's notability might have been established, Day's is currently being called into question. Just my thoughts... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to learn more about io9, you can always check Wikipedia. It is a professionally edited and highly respected sci-fi and tech blog. I know less about Den of Geek (and it doesn't get a Wikipedia page), but I believe it to be another professionally edited and written geek blog. I have no opinion about the chart situation or the personal notability of band members. gnfnrf (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand the biographies of living people for the Billboard chart position. Do I have to physically scan the page and upload it to ensure it really happened? It actually charted, was printed in the magazine, and is thus a reliable source. While I realize it's not a reliable source, on many of the band's fan pages, fan blogs, and tumblr all mentioned that the band charted, so there is at least small circumstantial evidence that I'm not just making all of it up just because it hasn't been archived yet.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting that they charted, my problem is whether or not their charting on the Top Heatseekers necessarily makes them notable. That being said, if you have that particular issue of Billboard to hand, it might be worth using the Cite journal template and including as many parameters as you can find. For instance, what's the issue number of that particular edition of Billboard? On which date was it published? Who edited that issue? On which page did the Heatseekers chart appear? Does Billboard have a chart consultant? If WP is to be believed, Billboard's ISSN is 0006-2510 and its OCLC number is 1532948. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since other editors have (clearly in good faith) questioned the sufficiency of Anglerfish6's sources to establish notability, I looked for some more. I found further sources at Wired magazine's website and Digital Spy. Yes, all these sources are "bloggy", but none of them are self-published blogs, which is what I always understood to be the problem with using blogs as reliable sources, per WP:BLOGS. gnfnrf (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you've hit upon my problem with the current sourcing in this article. As you say, they're all rather "bloggy", and some of them have a style of writing that seems a little too "chatty" for my liking. To me, it just doesn't seem entirely appropriate to source such definitive statements about the band with such sources. Then again, maybe other editors will disagree with me – I guess that that's the purpose of this discussion. Regards, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 02:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where the worry is coming from, but both Wired and Digital Spy have editors and the like, so they should be reliable. I found this in the Biographies of Living Persons, "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Both Wired and Digital Spy fall under this category, so they should be OK to use.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, there are only, what, two sources that are reliable? not enough for GNG. 109.204.113.111 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it's closer to three reliable sources rather than just two, but I see your point. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm counting five: DigitalSpy.com, i09, and Den of Geeks are all professionally edited "blogs" that are allowed per Biographies of a living person. Doctor Who Magazine is an edited, in print, third-party publication. And Billboard Magazine is obviously a reliable source.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as a hoax. Peridon (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repoy Empire[edit]

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

Not notable newly created empire that appears to be in the US Breawycker (talk to me!) 23:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Subject doesn't meet any criteria of WP:GNG. There are no reliable, secondary sources provided to prove notability. @pple complain 22:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saudia Mills[edit]

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

No real claim to notability. Eliminated reality show contestant, albums not on important label, no evidence of multiple significant roles in notable productions, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. PROD contested by article creator. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two of her three film roles are as a background character, and the only sources are a personal website and a label's. It sure looks like this article fails WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MSJapan (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as created noted already, no consistent rules for reality show star Reality Show Contestants - see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28music%29/Archive_4#Notability_of_.22reality_television.22_contestants.3F) - page stats traffic denote enough interest despite subjectivity on wiki notability. Also search of artist name yield enough articles from second hand sources. Article needs to be better developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintersbrock (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Wintersbrock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note to closing admin: Above user is a meatpuppet of this article's creator per SPI. MSJapan (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I wrote in my prod, there is no notability here. Coverage may exist in second hand sources but they are not independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Jap allegations don't equal truth. This account was created to protect myself from you and your crew of bullies. The pattern is clear and something will be done about it if you don't cease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintersbrock (talk • contribs) 16:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) — Wintersbrock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender Country[edit]

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see name-drops as the "first openly gay country act" in relation to other openly gay acts, but nothing of substance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of additional sources. I did find one small mention on both Yahoo! and Google here, but that wouldn't be enough for Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:BAND. Truthsort (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, withdrawal of nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lae Garden and Landscapes[edit]

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

The article starter removed the prod. A non-notable company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once I told the creator that print sources are allowed, he added plenty of sources. This can be closed. Joe Chill (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FP6 Grid Computing Projects[edit]

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

Linkspammy list. Many redlinked or nonlinked entries. No sources. Dubious notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Collection of non-notable projects. Most (or even all) of the bluelinked ones will be taken to AfD in the weeks to come, if this has not already been done. This kind of lists is utterly useless. There are hundreds of this kinds of projects going on all over the world. Why only grid computing projects? Why only FP6 projects? Why not also include NSF-funded programs? What about projects financed by any of the hundreds of other research-funding agencies? If by chance an individual project should be notable, it should have an article. The Framework programmes together are notable and databases (like the Cordis site) that contain data on funded projects should be linked from those articles. That's about where this should stop. --Crusio (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete perhaps not utterly but mostly useless. W Nowicki (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I de-prodded this article because it failed to meet the "uncontroversial" test IMHO. In this particular case, the proper solution is clearly the merge that Crusio asks about (perhaps rhetorically?) If there's content that can/should be merged to produce a list of use, the PRODing/AfDing the individual parts is not the way to get that done. Just do the work! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question was absolutely intended to be rhetorical. There are tens of thousands of research projects started each year all over the world. There's no way we could make sensible lists for that, nor should we even try. There are databases for that, doing a much better job than WP could do and we can link to those. I maintain a strong !vote for deletion. --Crusio (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you give yourself too little credit, after all, someone did make this list so it can't be that hard. I found it both interesting and useful, and as an average technical user I suspect others will find it useful too. Moreover, databases on the internet tend to be *extremely* ephemeral, and as it has been claimed that "grid computing" is no longer widely used, the list would thus be unlikely to change and of potential value from an archiving and curation standpoint. So after having said this, let me make this official: Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a list of notable grid computing projects is just as notable as any other list on the wiki. Suggest merging the articles into a single list, and pruning non-Wiki entries. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few of the projects have WP pages and the first two I clicked on were of dubious notability (I tagged both). The page itself has no independent references. Fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. @pple complain 22:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Eliot[edit]

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

No individual notability. Notable for being married to someone. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hardly a nonentity, she passes GNG - for example this in The Independent, this in the Guardian, to take a couple of items from the top of the Google list. The only argument for deletion, therefore, can be that she is disqualified by virtue of having been married to TS Eliot and her notability stems from that relationship, in which case she can be dealt with merely in passing under her husband's article. But I think the evidence is that as his literary executor she has far more importance and she has been a widow for a long time. If TS Eliot had appointed somebody who was not a relative as literary executor, and they had exerted the same influence over his legacy, and attacted the same attention, they would surely qualify for an entry. The mere fact of a relationhip cannot in itself disqualify, nor does it under WP:NOTINHERITED. --AJHingston (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She still makes the news, she still works on notable projects, she is, I believe, the largest shareholder of Faber and Faber. The article is small but not all have to be long and there is still the possibility of expansion (which won't happen if the article is gone of course.) Plus, but besides the point, she is more notable than thousands of articles like East Cupcake Elementary School. WikiParker (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harish Chandra Verma[edit]

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

WP:PROF does not apply. — Finemann (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject has not published articles with over 10 citations according to Google Scholar. Has not contributed majorly to his field of research. All the references used in the article are from the institute profile or his own personal website. No major coverage about the individual in reliable 3rd party sources (if at all any such coverage exists it does not have any significant coverage about the individual himself). The individual has published a book in two parts according to Google Books. But again this book has only 4 citations according to GScholar. There is a lot of material on the internet regarding this book. This is only due to its popularity among students who use it to prepare for the IIT-JEE. But this book is not mentioned in the actual syllabus of IIT-JEE. Again this book has not been in the syllabus of any major university. And the only two universities which seem to use it in India (Google) are the University of Pune and the Mohanlal Sukhadia University. Clearly this book is not widely used at all. Thus this article does not satisfy WP:PROF in any sense. Vote to delete. — Finemann (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Congratulations to the nominator on such an extensively researched nomination. I wish others would copy. Delete BLP unless further evidence emerges about the textbook. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - No sources were found in both Google and Yahoo to achieve notability.SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bejinhan talks 03:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Berlin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm renominating this article, because it is non enyclopedic and it violates WP:NOT, which steadily says that WP is not a restaurant or touristic guide, it is obviously an ads, it features telephone numbers, address, what is served in its menu, this article is non notable and does not feature sources that inforce this fact. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Agree that the article's style does not fit Wikipedia's policy. But there has been enough coverage about the restaurant in the media to make it notable. But this article would require a good deal of copyediting. — Finemann (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is well sourced with citations to reliable, secondary sources as required by WP guidelines. It is yet another article that is a complete mess, but salvageable. I did clean out some of the most egregious WP:Not violations, but it still needs a good copy editing. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jeremy. I don't see what can't be fixed by normal editing. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. @pple complain 20:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arroz con pollo[edit]

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

This article was deleted when its name was Chicken and Rice, but it was recreated and split into two different articles, this one and 53rd and 6th which is also nominated for deletion. The recreated article features similar problems from the original one, which include poor sourcing, notability, the sources provided cannot sustain notability, full of POV, with informal text sounding like a recipe, and it violates WP:NOT Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is also thousand of articles of rice dishes recipes as shown in Template:Rice dishes, these articles should all receive a mass nominee with the same argument risen as above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this is not just chicken and rice; it is a staple food of Latin American cuisine, with dozens of varieties. Before nominating this article, one needs to do a Google search at the very least. This is an easy rescue. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't yet see any evidence that this satisfies the general notability guideline. I looked for significant coverage in reliable sources [1] [2] [3] but couldn't find it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: last I checked, Wikipedia was not a WP:INDISCRIMINATE database of dishes lacking any WP:SECONDARY sourcing as to their cultural significance (Google Books turns up numerous recipes but little or no scholarly information). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs more information but the dish is clearly notable. Even I, a North American, have heard of it. BigJim707 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a major dish. Too many search results to sort through, and most news results are behind paywalls. Thousands of cookbooks and magazines mention the recipe though. Dream Focus 04:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lots of hits" is a terrible reason to keep to begin with, and coupling that with "I didn't even look" starts to push up on being disruptive. Please review the community's expectations on participation in these discussions. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did in fact look, and found things I clicked on behind paywalls. Dream Focus 05:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And "thousands of cookbooks" (and recipes in magazines) are hardly WP:SECONDARY sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, actually, it is. A food is notable if its covered in such things. How else would you judge it? Dream Focus 05:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - ROFLMAO! A recipe for creating a dish is very clearly a WP:PRIMARY source -- as you can't be any more "directly involved" than describing the steps to actually create the dish. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Chicken and Rice article that was deleted in 2006 was not about the food, but a place that sold food. Totally unrelated article. Dream Focus 05:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A dish of major cultural importance, maybe not up to the level of rice and beans, but still with a significant impact. That being said, if further expansion or real work cannot be done, a merge to one of the "Cuisine of" articles wouldn't seem unreasonable to me.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a major Latin American dish, which has obtained more than significant coverage in reliable sources including, but not limited to: [4] which is an article featuring the dish as a primary dish of Cuba in the New York Times on May 25, 1941. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It now has book references to the effect that it's a staple of Latin American cuisine - these referenced assertions from reliable sources are enough to show notability. (And it originated in Spain, so it can't be comfortably merged into any particular national cuisine article or even into Latin American cuisine). Novickas (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is notable because it is about a common dish eaten in many cultures and countries.Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Being a staple" is not an inclusion criterion. On the current sources:
- Cooking in America, 1840-1945 - This is a one paragraph introduction to the recipe, and does not even suggest it's notable.
- The Carolina Rice Kitchen: The African Connection - Just says that it's descended from pilua. Uses the words "most notably" but this does not amount to either a significant piece or a claim to notability.
- EyeMinded: Living and Writing Contemporary Art - Has one line about this, and just says "it's a staple."
- The complete idiot's guide to Latino history and culture - "No preview available." Unless someone has a hard copy and confirm that this is a significant piece, we can't go by sources we can't evaluate.
- Food and Wine - Even if we accepted that this counted as a reliable source, the whole non-recipe content is "This traditional Spanish favorite will work well with any smooth, full-flavored red, such as a Merlot or Zinfandel from California or a Rioja from Spain."
- New York Times - Again, we cannot evaluate the source, and "The most common dish of the island is "arroz con pollo," fried chicken and cooked rice mixed together and spiced with yellow saffron, green peas and Spanish red peppers." is not sufficient material to write an article from the neutral point of view.

Unless more and better sources can be brought to the table, this article does not appear to meet the requirement of having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If it's as important as everyone is saying, why is it so hard to find sources that aren't recipes? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Aaron B's last point about recipe inclusion; this is SOP for food writing; it's done in Larousse Gastronomique. Serious cookbooks often follow this pattern - an entry has a short intro summarizing the history and importance of the dish followed by a recipe. This is how Elisabeth Lambert Ortiz's entry on A con P is written. [5] Novickas (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because of the 4,720 news results to sort through and the 7,820 book results. Dream Focus 11:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A very major dish, particularly in Latin America. --Noleander (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The Elisabeth Lambert Ortiz book linked to above by Noleander starts out with (rough translation) "It would be impossible to write a book of Latin American cuisine without including any recipe for arroz con pollo, one of the favorite dishes of the continent." Joyce Lafay says (in Cuba Cocina: The Tantalizing World Of Cuban Cooking-Yesterday, Today And Tomorrow) that arroz con pollo is "the most famous dish in the Cuban repertoire" [6] Frommer's Puerto Rico says "Arroz con pollo (chicken with rice) is the most popular chicken dish on the island..."[7] Secrets of Colombian Cooking says "Arroz con Pollo is one of our staples; l think we had it every Saturday for lunch or dinner."[8] Argentina cooks! says "What Spanish-speaking country does not include Arroz con Pollo in its culinary repertoire?"[9] Many entries are brief, but clearly this is a major dish. Cloveapple (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. I think that there may be a misunderstanding. The earlier nomination was for an article on a food stand in Manhattan called "Chicken and Rice," not on the chicken and rice dish. That can be seen by examining the earlier AfD. The food stand article, retitled "53rd and Sixth," was just deleted.[10] ScottyBerg (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shell Vacations Club[edit]

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

I can only find a bunch of unreliable sources, local news, and press releases. Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - barely disguised spam, with no evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Shader[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears utterly non-notable and probably a vanity article (based on the name of the original creator). Was tagged for notability which was removed without explanation. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has a GS h index of 14, respectable for mathematics so passes WP:Prof#C1. Also appears to pass WP:Prof#C8. Please will nominator explain why he discounted these factors? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, somewhat weakish, but still. For a 20 year career with 81 published papers an h-index of 14 is not particularly impressive. I also looked carefully at his record in MathSciNet; he does have a lot of publications, but all of them in rather mid-level journals. However, he is an Editor-in-Chief of the Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra and he does have a teaching award from MAA (although a regional one, not a national one). So overall there does seem to be enough here to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete (unless...) We cannot rely solely on the h-Index (here's why). The teaching award he has received is certainly not a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". In my interpretation, the subject fails WP:PROF (and there is a lack of evidence of additional notability) unless it can be demonstrated that the Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra qualifies as a "major well-established academic journal". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra (ELA) is a publication of the International Linear Algebra Society (ILAS). Also ELA has impact factor 0.808 (2010) which is really good for mathematics journals. Therefore the Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra indeed qualifies as a "major well-established academic journal" of its field. So the article passes WP:Prof#C8. Also Bryan Shader works in Linear Algebra and Combinatorial Matrix Theory. If we look at his publications in MathSciNet we will see most of his articles were published in best journals of these fields. So the article passes WP:Prof#C1. Myuwmath (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I'm unable to access the Ams.org website cited just above and that "impact factor gauge" is something I'm unfamiliar with. If the community feels that is adequate then I will support a Keep decision. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Beer[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this particular product. Kelly ^hi! 19:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - winning a gold in the Canadian Brewing Awards 'is' notable. Although there is no Canadian Brewing Awards Article, it is given space on the Beer in Canada Article and awards they give mentioned in at least 14 other Articles. I would try it. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this is an annual award. On this criterion alone, are you to say that we should have an article for every year for every winner of this award?Curb Chain (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY. Even assuming for the sake of discussion that Canadian Brewing Awards constitute notability, this article doesn't have enough independent sources to establish notability by any criterion. And the mention of the Canadian Brewing Awards at Beer in Canada is itself not sufficiently sourced on that page. This article could possibly be rescued with a lot of work, but it's not even close right now IMO. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does The Beer Store count as an independent reliable source ? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Richwales. A website in a reseller relationship is not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notableCurb Chain (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nominator has withdrawn nomination/no longer advocates deletion, and no other participants advocate deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longdendale Community Language College[edit]

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

Fails to meet any notability standards under WP:ORG, other than being inspected and having a small award with limited coverage based on a google search. Kind of borderline to me, but I am on the delete side for this one. Sasquatch t|c 18:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Sasquatch t|c 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that it's on the borderline. The general presumption is that schools are notable; if there's really not enough for an article about the school, what can be salvaged should be merged into the next layer up (local council article?), and this page turned into a redirect to that article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be up for a merge... ~~Please note that it is not a high school, which is where it gets a bit sketchy to me.~~ Sasquatch t|c 19:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a longstanding convention that schools for pupils over about 11–12 years old are notable. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it is a secondary school and it also has a large amount of information compared to other schools example ALDER Jacobga (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Railpage Australia#Railcam_Project, where the information already exists. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bunbury Street Railcam Project[edit]

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

I can't find any independent reliable sources for this Railcam Project. Fails basic notability guidelines WP:Note JimmyGiggle (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is an independent source? I have seen the cameras myself and I can view the output. What else would be required? Isn't the proof available on the photostream which is listed in the article? I can also find the camera output live and on youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozrailfans (talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed nomination header. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N, our basic notability guideline, requires multiple secondary sources that cover the subject in-depth (i.e. not just a passing mention) and are independent of the subject (not written by or for the subject or someone closely associated with it). An example would be an article about it in a magazine or newspaper. See Wikipedia:Independent for more detail. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything from a 3rd party to point to the notability of the project. It is associated with the Railpage Australia website and Melbourne Wireless, but that isn't enough to meet WP:N. Possibly merge to either of these wiki entries? Wongm (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it exist. good enough for me. for now. re-nominate in the future if still status quo.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an really an argument -- WP:ITEXISTS. Notability is concerned with broad coverage in reliable secondary sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- it sounds cool, but unfortunately it can't have its own page due to lack of notability; there's no significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. A merge to a page like Railpage Australia seems reasonable though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a good choice.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Might not hurt to renominate this in a few months, to see if we can get a fuller discussion, but there's just no consensus here to do anything. Courcelles 17:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galina Shatalova[edit]

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

No proof of notability PtQa (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable researcher widely cited in the literature. Article needs sources. Marokwitz (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?. I can't find any cites in the literature. Where are they? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

See for example "Human possibilities: mind exploration in the USSR and Eastern Europe", by Stanley Krippner. "Calorie Theories, Longevity, and Natural Health: The System of Dr. Shatalova and Current Discoveries", by Tanya Zilberter. Marokwitz (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We expect many more than that. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note The Russian Wikipedia article has also been nominated for deletion.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no votes for deletion. Moscowconnection (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was nominated by the same person, at the same time. Moscowconnection (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her books in Russian: [11]. Some big articles about her: [12] (printed), [13] (Internet). Moscowconnection (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Sure, not all the articles you find like that are about her. But most are. Moscowconnection (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With a GS h index of 3 only of local interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I hadn't heard about her prior to seeing this AfD. But I've found out that she's the author of many books about healthy lifestyle and food. Her theory seems to be very well known in Russia but scientifically unrecognized. Moscowconnection (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've just added references. Moscowconnection (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A source in English: http://www.amazon.com/Calorie-Theories-Longevity-Natural-Health/dp/1451560680 Moscowconnection (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an independent source, it's an advertisement. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, I didn't know. It says "Editorial Review". You can remove it from the article. (It does seem relevant and helpful, though.) This one is a good independent source in Russian: [14]. It was published either in Argumenty i Fakty or in one of its subsidiaries. You can understand the idea with Google Translate. Here: [15]. Moscowconnection (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a very reliable source, a mention by REGNUM News Agency: [16]. It's just a mention, the short article is about a summer camp opening, a summer camp where people will improve their health by her method. Google Translate: [17] So you may think that she's "just a diet inventor" but I don't think she is. She seems to be very well known. Moscowconnection (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Xxanthippe, does not meet WP:PROF, does not meet WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note She clearly meets WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Her notability as a scentist doesn't have to be proven. If you don't like the article itself, you can re-write it based on the article in Argumenty i Fakty. Moscowconnection (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination doesn't really say why it should be deleted, and sources have been added.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Wolfe[edit]

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

Not seeing enough third party reliable sources establishing notability; promotes the subject more than anything else. Likely conflict of issue given creator's edits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite The few available sources do help to establish notability. COI alone isn't grounds for deletion; with a few more sources and a rewrite for NPOV it could be a perfectly fine article. Several Times (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the 'a few more sources' that is problematic. I can find lots of places he is quoted, but not articles about the man himself. - MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of independent biographical sources. - MrOllie (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of citations in GS but edit article to remove exorbitant spam and puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Rewrite- I am one of the contributors. Thank you for this specific feedback. My plan is to carefully review other bios that are already up and do not have issues and to try to utilize thier methodology. I have found the citation / reference sections difficult to input and will try to sort that out. Can you tell me what GS and NPOV mean? Dr. Wolfe's work is cited by many other authors in peer-reviewed journals. There is a citation service which could be referenced- i don't know if that is acceptable. For eg, the reference to children of battered women syndrome is regularly referenced and attributed to he and his colleague. Is that the kind of reference you require? My thought had been that, since his work is in peer-reviewed journals, that in and of itself was "external"- anyone who has had to go through the peer acceptance process will appreciate what i am saying. Again, thank you for the helpful comments. Bll79llb (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)bll79llb — Bll79llb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Comment - Not sure what was meant by GS, but NPOV is Neutral Point Of View. GB fan please review my editing 13:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GS=Google Scholar. --Crusio (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as significant contributor to his field - I edited out some of the "spam and puffery" — Pjaffe2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and probably other criteria as well. Total citations on GS are over 8,000. Three most cited papers have more than 290 citations each. His book on children of battered women alone has more than 700 citations on GS. His h-index is a very high 48, comparable to those of some Nobel laureates.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems to meet WP:PROF. The article is overly self-referential but that is more of a style issue. Professor Wolfe has contributed to this article himself (please note that his first edit summary discloses this and states his reasons) so the page should certainly be reviewed to avoid potential conflict of interest. But in itself, I feel the subject has the required notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does suffer from overly promotional tone that needs to be moderated, but the subject is notable. Apart from high citability noted above, he also has significant national and international awards that are listed in the article and verified (particularly the Donald O. Hebb Award from the Canadian Psychological Association, and the Blanche L. Ittleson Award from the American Orthopsychiatric Association). Passes WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. causa sui (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aptera 2 Series[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This article about a future product is based entirely on press releases and web sites from the manufacturer. There is no sustained independent coverage in serious journalistic or scholarly sources. There are passing mentions in a couple blogs, which is insufficient. See also WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of announcements of future products. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree The Aptera design is notable for several things: three wheels, low aerodynamic drag, prototype was a finalist in the Automotive X Prize, many 3rd party media writeups (Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, EV journals). It should be given the same weight as other concept cars at the moment. That said, it could indeed use cleanup; much of the detail is obsolete, from before the Detroit takeover when it was still a media darling. The Aptera fanbase which would have done the editing has dispersed due to the company's mismanagement. Surely there are other low-hanging fruit, like the demise of the Triac (car)? --IanOsgood (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of those issues and all that drama (bankruptcies, takeovers, redesigns, slipped ship dates, etc...) is typical of vaporware, and it's exactly why pages about future products that exist mostly in the form of press releases and rumored venture capital should be deleted on sight without solid, critical reporting from mainstream publications, based on real research carried out by a professional. Paraphrasing a press release is fluff. Many blogs and some magazines exist to entertain their readers with pie in the sky inventions. Somebody faxes a press release and a CAD-CAM rendering to Popular Science or Wired and they write a credulous blurb about it. All in good fun, but that's not encyclopedic because it isn't knowledge, it's just somebody's promise about what they hope to do some day. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

It qualifies under WP:ORGIN. The design is original, and a very dramatic departure from conventional vehicle design in several ways: 3-wheels, composit body, extremely aerodynamic shape, and others.
It qualifies under WP:CORPDEPTH. Many print and electronic news organizations have covered the Aptera 2 Series and the company over the years. A recent [Google search on "Aptera 2 Series"] found about 139,000 results. If you follow the link and review the search results, you will find that very, very few of the sitings are from the Aptera company web site.
While sustained coverage is not required for notability, The [New York Times], a WP:RS, covered an Aptera 2 Series visit less than 1 year ago.
Every Automotive X Prize competitor gets consideration under WP:V and WP:NRVE. All finalists underwent independent testing supervised both by the Xprise organization, and the Argonne National Laboratory.
Aptera Motors is an on-going business, and the Aptera 2 Series can be revived, however unlikely that seems. Let us not delete Aptera articles prematurely. Let us err on the side of inclusion. Devrandy (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree They are not just vaporware with press releases and promises. They are still a functioning company that has 5 prototype vehicles that are driving around San Diego on a daily basis. Sure, they are on the brink of bankruptcy, but there is still a chance that this revolutionary vehicle may make it to market. I agree with the comments of the two dissenters above. For these reasons, I think we should keep this information available to the public. If the company should disappear without producing any salable products, then I agree with putting them down as a footnote on a page regarding efficient aerodynamic vehicles.--Palmer md (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and Devrandy (above) should be aware that enlisting employees of this company to create single purpose accounts in order to attempt to "vote" in favor of your company's article, or creating sock puppet accounts for the same purpose is extremely obvious, and it is counterproductive. The best you can hope for is that the admins will ignore your "votes". And it's not a vote anyway. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would stick to the rules and not attack the people who post here. I have absolutely no affiliation with Aptera other than I really liked the concept car when I first discovered it in 2007. You can trace my posts and/or ask me yourself, but I promise you and everyone else who reads this that I have no affiliation with Aptera.--76.29.168.121 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)--Palmer md (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, also, have no affiliation with Aptera, the company or the vehicle. Yes, my Wikipedia account is new. No, I have not contributed to Wikipedia content (yet), except in this matter. If the admins decide to keep the Aptera 2 Series article, I promise to improve it. :-) Devrandy (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact, not a falsehood, that everyone, and that includes you, should be aware of WP:COI, WP:SOCK, and WP:SPS. By ensuring everyone is familiar with these guidelines, discussions can be kept on track and the best decision can be made. Nobody accused you of anything except the need to be familiar with Wikipedia's rules; all of us share the same need. Timely reminders of relevant policies are effective preventing unhelpful comments, if any, from increasing in number. If, having carefully read and considered these policies and guidelines, you feel none of them apply to your behavior, then so much the better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is video of the Aptera being driven by Jay Leno, alone, here: http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/search/?search=aptera. It exists, at least a prototype does. This page should never be deleted, but it might need to be edited. I am a potential customer with no relation to the company. Helot 02:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helot (talk • contribs)

Existence ≠ Notability. Wikipedia is not about everything. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Yes, there is a prototype car named the Aptera 2, and yes it is mentioned quite a bit on the web. But it does not exist yet in production, and there are no independent secondary sources that discuss it in depth. As far as I can tell, 99% of the material is promotional in nature, or informal blogs. I do see some mention in a book named "Aptera" by Tom Warhol, but that book is thin (50 pages) and more of a lightweight pamphlet. That book, alone, doesnt seem to demonstrate notability. --Noleander (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Hemmings[edit]

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

Wikipedia policy not to have footballer articles until they have made their first team debuts, Hemmings has yet to do so. Ifore2010 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He made his debut as a substitute in the champions league qualifier against malmo although i am not 100% sure whether that counts. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he played in a UEFA Champions League qualifier tonight (Malmo FF v Rangers) and therefore meets WP:NSPORTS guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, made his professional debut tonight in the UEFA Champions League. --Johnelwaq (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As he meets the guidelines no reason to delete. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise it. Ifore2010 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep aye, looks notable to me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm happy to withdraw this debate now I know where I went wrong. Ifore2010 (talk) 8:05 am, Today (UTC−7)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the standards for musicians are not met. Courcelles 01:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J Angel[edit]

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

Non-notable songwriter with no adequate sourcing from reliable secondary sources to meet notability guidelines. Warfieldian ^(talk) 17:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "10.If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD." - via Wikipedia

"This article was written by a fan, since there have been millions of views, and website downloads interested in this songwriter's work on the web. This article is a great start for this songwriter, and will be built upon by others. I know for a fact that this songwriter will have several other major releases this year, and the public is interested in seeing his growing songwriting credits. The sources listed on this article are reliable, and the information can be verified and proven to be 100% accurate. Roc Nation has an extremely elite group of songwriters and only signs platinum hit caliber writers, as you will see from their current songwriters' roster. This songwriter is extremely notable within the music industry and with aspiring songwriters, and has sparked interest of fans around the world, particularly in Germany." comment added by Susieuh (talk • contribs) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fails the GNG, MUSICIAN, etc. Sources in article are all almost useless. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Susieuh, nobility is based upon what a songwriter has done, not on what might happen in the future or who they associate with. Currently, he has not written a "notable" song, thus fails WP:COMPOSER. Unable to find reliable sources about him. If Susieuh is right about what he might do, then this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Bgwhite (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "I have added more production writing credits from the ASCAP ACE search, which is noted by Wikipedia as a credible source for musical credits and compositions."comment added by Susieuh (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.192.8 (talk) [reply]

Comment Three of the five songs listed in the table are unreleased. One was already in the article. For the fifth song, performed by Chopper City Boyz, I'm unable to find an album for it. Do you know the details on the release? Also, the website for Chopper City Records is no more. Does the company and CC Boyz have a website other than facebook? Bgwhite (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Notability guidelines says nothing about unreleased songs. It's still verifiable and thus reliable, i.e. you were able to look it up. These songs have been recorded, and they will be released in good time. "comment added by Mariapere (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.192.8 (talk) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Kiani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No evidence that the player has competed at a notable level. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the criteria stated above:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no verifiable claim to notability. Giant Snowman 19:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - all three players have not played in a fully pro league, and all three fail WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gold farming. causa sui (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game sweatshop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was kept because of SNOW arguments last time. I don't think anyone actually looked at the article, which hasn't really changed much. The article appears to be a heavily-biased editorial about the lack of virtues of trading money for in-game items/accounts/money for MMO(RPG)s. There are no sources that really use a term "game sweatshop". Furthermore, this appears to be basically a statement on Runescape's decision to deal with this dated from 2007. Nothing much has changed since then.

I would ask that moderators not close this on SNOW arguments given that there are serious issues with the article shown above that have not been addresses, including whether the term "game sweatshop" is even a relevant term.陣内 _Jinnai 17:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nomination just seems to be the weak argument of WP:NOEFFORT. Why does no-one care to improve this? Perhaps because there's no money in it. Think about it ... Warden (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it actually addressed the broad concept coined in the article's page "Game sweatshop" and didn't appear to be an editorial centered around farming then maybe. NOEFFORT is not some blanket statement you can throw around to keep things forever.陣内 _Jinnai 21:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gold farming. This article does provide some specific content not seen elsewhere, but it is framed in a critical work of original research that doesn't deal with a subject independent of Gold farming. I can't find any evidence that the term 'game sweatshop' is even in wide usage and it isn't specifically used by the cited references. Several Times (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) 陣内 _Jinnai 21:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gold farming. The term name itself may not be notable, but the definition of it is certainly something that's about as rampant as gold farming. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as an empty article that is the product of an accident. The article's creator, who is in fact the author and sole editor of it:Joseph McDivitt, had already once accidentally submitted an Italian language article to the English Wikipedia. This is just a continuation of the same error three minutes later. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph McDivitt[edit]

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

Blank page — dargereldren ^{T C G E R} 15:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interwiki. Clearly, the creator wanted someone to translate it. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what should I do? Close the AfD and remove all the text except "[[it:Joseph McDivitt]]"? — dargereldren ^{T C G E R} 22:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Economic Forum Supply Chain & Transport Risk[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is a non-notable project - fails WP:GNG. Only 1 third party source which is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Also crystal balling as it hasn't actually done anything yet. ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable committee set to release a report sometime next January. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Crystal balling and non-notable. Dismas|^(talk) 18:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL BALL; notability has yet to be established, if/when the organisation actually does something. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per above. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to include further details on what the initiative has achieved to date and additional references to the meetings and events that have already been held. Any additional suggestions on changes would be appreciated.R.l.green32 (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Apte[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:PROF not satisfied. Google Scholar and Google News does not give anything of significant importance. The references from The Times of India and Express India does not have any significant coverage about the subject (which makes his notability as a science popularizer highly questionable). Most other references are announcements about the talks given by the subject. Although he has published quite a few books, most are in the regional Indian language Marathi and I don't believe any of them are widely used or read. Further the publisher of his books, Rajhansa Prakashan is not a notable third-party publisher. It is highly possible that it is a firm owned by the subject. — Finemann (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all WP:prof with a totals of 5 cites in GS. Appears to be only of local interest. Xxanthippe (talk).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No sources independent of the subject confer notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No good sources were found on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ferrara[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than related to Eric Ferrara. Has a few links but they seem to be trivial coverage or mentions pushing his books. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Huge COI issue, plus a non-notable person per wiki guidelines. The Undead Never Die (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI problems. Also an attack page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hecticccc (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A biography doesn't need to mention the list of places he's going to appear, that immediately suggests that the article was created for promotional purposes. I didn't see anything notable on both Yahoo and Google aside from his Linkedin and Facebook. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDY and per nom. Cited sources do not establish notability per WP:PERSON. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy McAllister[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted under AfD, but may be different. PRODed with the reason "Long forgotten and unsourced BLP, not independently notable sufficient to support article." The-Pope (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics_and_educators-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands_and_musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The present article is different from and unrelated to the one that was deleted by AfD on April 8, 2006, but is very similar (with the addition of a discography section) to the article that was speedy deleted (WP:CSD#A7) on November 22, 2006. It was created again about two months after the speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and salt. Do not forget to properly condiment :)--Cerejota (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deitys war[edit]

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

No indication of notability - internet search returned nothing. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional_elements-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author has requested deletion marked for speedy under G7. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 11:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus. A clear case of WP:NEO that should have been speedy deleted. @pple complain 20:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fibroceutical[edit]

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

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

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

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

Rambling article presenting an utter neologism. Tempting to tag it for speedy deletion: A10 fork of fibromyalgia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also a non-notable neologism, invented for promotional purposes: Fibroceutical, a term which combines the words “fibromyalgia” and “nutraceutical”. Actually, only one of those was a word to begin with. Essentially an article about treating fibromyalgia with nutritional supplements; sounds like advertising moonshine to me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, consider speedy. No novel content other than a non-notable neologism; mostly a redundant content fork on fibromyalgia.Novangelis (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I get about 50 Google hits for "Fibroceutical" and 300k for "Fiberceutic" which is a haircare product by L'Oreal. This article has been aptly assessed by RHaworth, Smerdis and Novangelis as non-notable advertising. The references provided do not deal with the term fibroceutical but with fibromyalgia, which has its own article. De728631 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to address the concern that this word is simply a combination of existing terms. Often in the medical field it is necesary to utilize a combination of concepts or terms to adequately describe a disease, condition, or treatment method. It was a mere 9 years ago that a group of physicians and medical experts sat around a table to discuss how they could articulate the benefits of a new therapy to aid men that suffered from impotance. It was decided to combine the words erectile and dysfunction to describe this treatable condition. Later the term was shortened even further by pharmaceutical representatives and physicians to ED. I searched this site and found substantial information on Erectile Dysfunction. We are fortunate that individuals without the medical background or scientific knowledge did not dimiss this term as simply a neologism that combines two words that have valid stand alone meanings but when combined create a useful term for discussing a valid medical condition. In a similar fashion, I urge the experts that are considering the inclusion of this term to understand that the term Fibroceutical is not merely a combination of Fibromyalgia and nutraceutical. Fibroceutical is a medical term that is being utilized by those engaged in research and study in the fields of treating the symptoms associated with Fybromyalgia Syndrome. Additionally, the implication that this term is marketing spam or advertising moonshine appears to be a personal attack on the author with no validation. As I read the article there was no mention of a sales pitch or a product. If the experts that are deciding on the inclusion of Fibroceutical in Wikipedia take the time to read the medical articles that are referenced, they will easily identify them as non biased, they are not linked or related to any promotion of products. Rather, these articles discuss the results of years of clinical research on various doses of non pharmacological agents in the treatment of various symptoms associated with the symptoms of Fibromyalgia. I think most reasonable people would agree that if a physician posted on the osteoporosis page that it was recommended for women to consume 1200 mg a day of calcium that they did not have a hidden agenda to increase the sale of a natural occurring ingredient like calcium that can be found in a wide variety of foods and nutritional supplements. The rational conclusion for any reader even vaguely familar with the symptoms and degeneration of bone mass associated with osteoporosis, would understand that the physician is simply stating that the widely accepted medical community agrees that based on years of clinical and empirical research from vast sources, 1200 mg is a therapeutic dose of calcium for those women suffering from osteoporosis. That is the intent of the term Fibroceutical, to describe particular doses of natural ingredients that have been studied and how these doses affect various symptoms associated with Fybromyalgia Syndrome.PharmaMBA (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)PharmaMBA user blocked as sock of article author - JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for similar reasons - non-notable neologism, but mostly because I believe it to be a wikispam article mostly like commissioned by an interested company. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I have read the comments regarding the wikipedia submission for the word fibroceutical and would like to provide my own comments to the discussion board. As was stated previously by another commenter, the write-up in question does not make any suggestion of advertisement for any product and as such, appears to be benign regarding any concern regarding “wikispam” as another previous commenter had made. The current write-up appears to be a non-biased submission in my opinion. I am a practicing physician and have been in private practice post residency training for greater than 15 years. I graduated from medical school over 20 years ago and there are certainly many new clinical diagnoses and diagnostic testing equipment available today that were not known when I graduated at that time. I have examined and treated many patients over this period of time who currently suffer from a myriad of symptoms that they believe are related to the diagnosis of Fibromyalga. For many years the medical community questioned the existence of the diagnosis of Fibromyalgia but over time, the American College of Neurology has determined that this diagnosis is a real medical condition and should be treated as such. The American College of Neurology has even determined the appropriate method for which the diagnosis should be made based on clinical and historical information. Many of these patients are presently being treated with both prescription (pharmacological) medications as well as natural (neutracuetical) agents. Many of these patients have seen significant benefits with the use of both such products. I am concerned that these patients, many of whom have seen a multitude of medical professionals over a period of many years before the diagnosis of Fibromyalgia is made, will choose inappropriate methods to help with their condition. As such, they are desperate for information and help. I believe that there is a significant need for additional research regarding appropriate treatment for these patients and that the nomenclature of a word such as fibroceutical would be beneficial for future research concerning natural agents (nutraceutical) as well as pharmaceutical products. There are many examples of natural products which have shown significant benefit to patients. The medical complaint of joint pain is a classic example with millions of patients currently taking glucosamine chondroitin with significant benefit and with scientific research available to confirm this. Certainly the pharmaceutical industry provides medications designed and formulated to address specific disease states and medical complaints. I believe that it is only appropriate that nutraceutical agents should also be formulated to assist patients with specific medical conditions and complaints. I would like to suggest that the word fibroceutical is a legitimate new word, not simply a “neologism” as mentioned above, and should be included in the wikipedia glossary. DrGatsby1962 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC) user blocked as sock of article author - JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that it is not Wikipedia's role to help in the introduction of new terms, however worthy or interesting. As an encyclopedia, it reports only on things that are already established, and the policies WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research are fundamental. Your arguments about the treatment of Fibromyalgia are irrelevant to this discussion, which is about whether the term "Fibroceuticals" is sufficiently established and widely enough used to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. Please read the policy on neologisms which includes: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term... Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." There is no evidence here even that the term is in use: Google scholar comes up blank, and the results of a Google search seem to be mostly about the domain names fibroceutical.com and fibroceuticals.com. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - Given this edit by the article's author - a housekeeping edit on the user page of PharmaMBA (talk · contribs), can I suggest that PharmaMBA's comments are disregarded by the closing admin? If you look at the timings - PharmaMBA's account was created just a few hours after the article was originally PROD'ed and his first action was to remove the PROD notice. Then today the creating editor pops up and does some edits to PharmaMBA's user page. I can take it to WP:SPI if needed, but this is a minor-league attempt at socking it is so transparent that nobody will be fooled by it. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read and re-read the contributions by both DrGatsby1962 and PharmaMBA I decided that a sock puppet investigation was called for. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lane89mr. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI has confirmed that the article author Lane89mr, DrGatsby1962 and PharmaMBA are indeed the same person. The latter two have been blocked indefinitely. Speedy delete anyone? --Biker Biker (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it is might be worth invoking the WP:Snowball clause now that all opposition has been shown to be socks of the article's creator, I see no need for a speedy this many days into an AfD. Hopefully there will be no further disruption.Novangelis (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socks blocked: I would agree with a SNOW close, but as I have commented I will leave another admin to consider it. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramaswamy Jagannathan[edit]

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

WP:PROF does not apply. The article was created by a doctoral student of Prof.Jagannathan User:Sameenahmedkhan. None of Prof.Jagannathan's publications used as references in the article has over 20 citations. The claim that Prof.Jagannathan made groundbreaking contribution to the fields mentioned in the article is highly disputed. He has not held any distinguished position or received any major awards according to his cv. — Finemann (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Low citability in GScholar and WebOfScience, h-index in low single digits, nothing else indicates passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nsk92. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per lack of notable mentions. Both Yahoo! and Googles searches showed very little results, the only thing that came to close to mentioning him was Linkedin. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Alcayaga[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS - there is no record of his play at ATP.com; claims of his tennis notability, all unsourced, are apparent fabrications Mayumashu (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 11:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Finding a couple of results in 1993 for "Gustavo Alcayaga" on the ITF site , but that doesn't qualify for NTENNIS. If his highest ranking was #324 then it is not likely he played on main tour. Creator of the article disappeared after setting up this page Special:Contributions/Elguga. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay (This [18], then insert '1990' and '1995' for years for the search filter.) (Btw, interesting how ATP.com does not show ITF Satellite results but does show ITF Futures results.) With one satellite event qualifying match win ever, he would never have been ATP ranked, explaining while he has no ATP profile. The ranking claim in the WP article has been made up. Mayumashu (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His only claim to fame seems to be as one of Agassi's dozens of hitting partners. plus this article was written as if it belongs on a personal home page as opposed to an encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited sources give no indication of notability. I couldn't find anything in a Google search that supported anything bigger than being the director of a local tennis club. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas. Courcelles 17:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Empire – Republic of Texas relations[edit]

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

whilst some of these Republic of Texas bilaterals are notable, I don't see this pairing between notable. neither state had embassies, and all this was a 6 year period of recognition which could easily be covered in Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas. trade was limited to 1 item. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 11:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 11:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nomination seems reasonable. I've been pretty inclusionist when it comes to bilateral relation articles between currently existing countries, but historical information like this is probably best covered in a more comprehensive article than single-relation entries, like Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas, with a redirect from this article's title. I'm actually wondering if Mycenaean Greece - Hittite Empire Relations is going to be a redlink when i submit this comment!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging to the relevant foreign relations articles, which can be done without an AFD discussion. Information is pretty trivial and, as much as some of us wish Texas would leave the United States, the information is not likely to expand anytime soon.--TM 14:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You May delete- I will agree with you that when I created this article, it had less information than all that preceded it, I guess I had already found all the countries with actual relations with Texas, and just wanted to keep going, I had others I could not create simply because there was no information out there, this one had roughly the bear minimum, but i assumed someone out there would know more and add more, I've always been inclusionist, that may be my downfall, but I will create no more on this subject and instead take your advise on creating a merge artical as soon as I can, thank you Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas. Good work by User:Phoenix B 1of3 for creating the framework of that article. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love on Top[edit]

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

Apart from appearing on one chart, this song is no more notable than any album track, and fails WP:SONGS. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and much of the article is derived from the comments of critics in album reviews. The singer has not promoted the song in any way, and the only background info given is the song credits and a short quote. Can I suggest that this article be incubated for now? —Andrew_stalk 07:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Andrew_stalk 07:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep AFD is for that, deletion of articles. If you want to incubate it, use Talk:Love on Top instead. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was to be incubated, Love on Top would need to be deleted anyway. —Andrew_stalk 07:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I also suggest incubation after deletion. Novice7 (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has everything to meet WP:GNG. Moreover, it has charted which further supports its existence. There are hundred of articles on Wikipedia about songs which do not deserve to be here. I do not believe "Love on Top" is one of them. Out of the 32 professional reviews 4 received, above 80% of them mention this song. It got significant coverage. And please do not believe it charted in South Korea for one week. It remained at number 3 for 3 weeks selling above 50000 copies (which equals to 5000 copies in the US) each week. There is at least a quote by Beyonce in background. What more do you want? Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there verification for the music video? —Andrew_stalk 09:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only fansites i guess. But fansites will not be accepted here although i know 90& of time whatever they report are simply true. Jivesh • Talk2Me 10:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone has a link stating a video has been shot? Please. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it should remain, his notoriety will come soon, with projections music video and single.Silencio faz bem • Talk2Me 13:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Adabow and Novice. Oz ^talk 10:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It meets WP:GNG. selling 50000 copies is enough for notable music.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same as the keep comments above. This is a very detailed article for a song which hasn't been released as a single. Gong by Beyonce's track history, at least 3 more singles will be released from 4, and the odds of Love on Top, Countdown, End of Time, Party or I Was Here becoming a single are extremely high, thus they will become a 'single' and not be a 'song' anymore, so to me it makes sense to keep them. There is clearly a lot of info about this song, and it has charted, it doesn't matter if it has only charted in Korea, it's still a chart. And a song review within an album = a song review. The song is still being written about and attracting attention, so that point is redundant, because hundreds of articles will use songs reviews from an album review. I think I have made my point. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 10:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons stated above Crystal Clear x3 11:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The song charted and there is significant coverage. My love is love (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to WP:SONGS#Notability, "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...". Also, WP:VERIFY says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Therefore, I believe this article is notable enough and verifiable enough to remain a standalone music article. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 17:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The sources give significant attention to the song, so whether or not it charted is immaterial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It charted and there is plenty of third party coverage. It is notable. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 18:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. If anything, incubate for a while - This is an issue I've warned about for some time. The article is a nice size and good info, but honestly, I can make an article like this for every Gaga song from Born This Way as well. It isn't really fair. It doesn't take much to find this amount of info for a song.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — Article was obviously only created so that Beyonce could have more song articles on Wikipedia. Seems like WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. I'm in the same place as Nathan above me right now, the song is notable, yes, but is the article necessary? I'd say incubate would be the best option, with moving it into the main space if a video comes out, or it becomes a single. ℥^nding·start 19:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charted. Sourced thoroughly. Everything. Meets GNG and SONGS. If a music video is indeed in the making, than this song will soon become more worthy of an article than Suga Mama and Freakum Dress (both of which are GA articles). --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо
Keep per Cprice. RatiziAngelou^contribs 20:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Nathan and Ending-start Pixelyoshi (discuter) 20:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the other users, the article provides much information about the song and has notoriety. Lucas Brígido ^Msg 00:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the others. Tomica1111 (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 4 and edit protect. This must be lifted however once allowable under Wikipedia policies. Valuable information like its (one instance) charting could be placed in the album page instead. No substantial coverage yet. Wikipedia however is not based on speculation, therefore suggestions that it might chart in other countries, might be released, might have a video accompaniment are moot. --Efe (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- As stated by other users before me, the song has charted very well in Korea, remaining in the Top 10 in the country for a month and a half (roughly). As the creator of the page (with some great help from other users), i can honestly say the article was created ONLY to educate people on the song and in no way is to "favor Beyonce" by giving her more song article. Anyone using WP:INDISCRIMINATE as an excuse to delete the article is speaking out of their ass, excuse the language, because to them this is just another Beyonce article made only because of that- to be a Beyonce article. But no. I saw the song had charted VERY well in Korea and took advantage of that to create a page that details the songs creation and speaks very highly on the structure of the song, focusing mainly on the vocal structure used in the song, which is a new thing to Beyonce. I do not understand what to "Incubate the article" means, so i can not voice my opinions on that. Theuhohreo (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INCUBATE. Its there. And Knowles did not speak heavily of the song. That was just part of their marketing blitz, and that's found in her website which is makes it an info taken from a primary source, not secondary. I can't even find it now. --Efe (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That helped. In a worse case scenario i would ask that the article be incubated because their is no use in losing the information and work done, if deleted. But my vote remains to keep the article (note: this is NOT a second vote, just a re-statement). And the quote for "Love on Top" is included in the source given. You have to read the formatted ref. Theuhohreo (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. Not lose the information. That's why mine was to just redirect this to 4. Yes. I saw it the note. But still its a primary source, which doesn't count as a "substantial coverage". --Efe (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other discriminate info (chart info) could be merged into the album page instead. --Efe (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to let all of you know that Beyonce is not among the ones giving interviews here and there to talk about her songs. Best proof is "Single Ladies" which was so popular in the US. Yet, she never mentioned something about the development of the song. Same for the rest except "Beautiful Liar" (2007). Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is not a solution. 4 is already at 100KB and i assure you that it will grow even more with the release of more singles, her tour, etc. Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page contains enough valid references to sustain its notability. Snap Snap 00:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I m against the creation of pages for non-singles experience has taught me that the community is happy to have pages like this exist when there are reliable sources. This song has receieved a lot of coverage from reliable sources, it has charted on a national single chart and is thus notable per WP:NSONGS. There is too much information here to merge to 4, which is another reason to keep this article. (looks like a WP:SNOWBALL to me...) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and fails WP:SONGS ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 18:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please state why it fails WP:SONGS? I just want to hear actual points and reasons, because people just throw "WP:SONGS" out there as the excuse, but don't really have anything to back that up. Theuhohreo (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus because 6 editors wanted to keep and 7 wanted to delete it.

Okay that's not really why, but those are the rough totals, i.e. a split between participants, and too few participants for such an incredibly long discussion. There were a number of valid points made by editors on both sides with respect to notability.

I think there's a reason this AfD sat around for several days without being closed, aside from it being really long, namely that there's no good way to "read" it given the nature of the discussion. One editor made 61 edits to this page and contributed a great deal of verbiage, while his main interlocutor contributed 25 and also said a bunch of stuff. This is not to mention the exchanges on Talk:Leonard R. Brand which are related to the discussion here (and which I read a lot of but most certainly did not read in total because, uhh, I just couldn't). That's all well and good and I don't doubt the good intentions of folks involved in the discussion, but for as long as this fiksybusiness is, there are few real participants, and that's a major problem given the large amount of side chatter and the lack of agreement as to the outcome.

So I see this as "no consensus" not so much because of the !vote totals or even the arguments--though that's part of it--but because this AfD just didn't unfold in a way that is conducive to coming to any sort of Wiki-style consensus. For now we default to keep due to the lack of consensus, but I think the following should really, really, really happen going forward:

Open a new AfD in a few months or so to revisit the matter (unless no one wants to, which is also quite fine).
The primary participants here--you know who you are--who have flooded this AfD and the article with edits need to restrain themselves next time around.
Discussion should be focused tightly on the quality of the sources and the specifics of the notability policies as applied to this person.
The points about how WP:FRINGE relates to WP:PROF, made by Nsk92, need to be considered.
Obviously keep working on the article in the meantime.

Basically this is a "no consensus, let's try again later" close. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard R. Brand[edit]

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

Minor creationist and Seventh Day Adventist-affiliated academic. Very little third party coverage, and what there is is almost solely on the subject of his (now long-discredited) Coconino Sandstone claims -- so this would appear to be WP:BLP1E and if considered worth keeping, could be merged into Flood geology. Any pretensions to WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR would appear to rest solely on (narrow and as yet unsubstantiated) claims of influence within SDA academia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is is one of the few to directly link creationism advocacy with a relevant program of mainstream (peer-reviewed) scientific research. That research has ~80 peer-citations, and in particular there have been numerous articles (in high profile journals including Nature) solely on a concept introduced by the topic (pertaining to an otherwise as-yet unexplained feature of some fossil tracks). Unlike most other uni. professors, there have been published books written by the topic for wider audiences. The topic's theological writings are also independently mentioned by other published religious literature (e.g., [19]). Seems to satisfy the professor test. Cesiumfrog (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Website? (It is an except of a published book. Similarly [20] and [21] substantiate his having presence in the religious sphere.) Long discredited and widely debunked? That's not the impression I get (see e.g., Geology Today v.8 iss.3 p.78–79 May 1992, or [22], or [23], or Nature 355:110 9 Jan. 1992) but I'm interested to see your sources. Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics_and_educators-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS gives an h-index of 9, so does not pass WP:Prof#C1 or the "Professor test". Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Brand has been cited in over one hundred peer-reviewed articles (see: Google Scholar search results). He has made noteworthy contribution to the field study of fossil mammals. His contribution to the creation/evolution debate has been notable, yet, thoughtful and non-combative. Article needs lots of help. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a total of 80 or 100 citations for his work and mention of it on some (fellow conservative SDA) minister's website does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Breathlessly describing Brand's claims as "otherwise as-yet unexplained" does not alter the fact that ~~his claims~~ [claims of underwater footprints] have been widely debunked as failing to explain far more than they explain. Nor does unsubstantiated claims of noteworthiness and notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If his claims have been widely debunked, that would tend to imply notability, but sources are needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Another Comment: Brand is the department chair for Loma Linda University's Earth and Biological Sciences department. His contribution to biology and paleontology is respected, though minor, compared to the leaders in those fields. However, at the intersection of Religion and Science, his contribution to the discussion is notable. He is a creationist and a peer-reviewed paleo-biologist with solid field experience. This combination makes him a notable figure among creationists and, in particular, among Seventh-day Adventists. For the 12 million+ Adventists when Brand speaks on science and religion, they generally consider what he says important. His notability as a paleo-biologist is weak. His notability as a young-earth creationist paleo-biologist is strong, almost unmatched. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such claims need sourcing to qualify for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Department chair: [24]. Contribution to creation-evolution debate: some sources in article. Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, department chair, particularly of a fairly small sectarian university, does not meet WP:PROF (sourced or not). What is needed is sourcing for claims for notability -- such as your "intersection of Religion and Science" claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 00:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn wrote "'Sectarian' means on the fringes of academia, not in the forefront -- particularly in the field of science." To be notable, it is not necessary for a person to be in the forefront, though it certainly makes notability easier to establish. Take Giberson as an example. He is a Nazarene, works at a Nazarene college, has a specialty in physics and theology, and yet he seems quite regarded by the science community and various faith communities. Most of the best universities were 'sectarian' when they began. Considering the SDA church's stance on Creation vs Evolution, it is notable that they have some significantly respectable scientists. They have specialists in many different areas of science, but only a few respected for their geological and paleobiological field science. A cutting edge scientist usually ends up in the ivy league but there are others who turn down offers so they can serve the sectarian institution. We call that being mission-minded. Who knows whether Brand has had offers from such schools? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loma Linda University, while relatively small (about 3,500 students) is a highly respected university that's over a century old and being the Chairman of a department there is significant. It being a "sectarian" university has nothing to do with the notability of this person just as a department Chairperson of the Jesuit Georgetown University shouldn't be considered non-notable just because it's "sectarian." --Oakshade (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please offer substantiation for the claim that it is "highly respected", and particularly that it is respected for its science. "Sectarian" means on the fringes of academia, not in the forefront -- particularly in the field of science, and means better known for its devoutness than for its cutting-edge scholarship. Being the head of a science department at a small, sectarian university would in most instances mean that you are not a notable scientist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(And no, passing mention by Giberson or Alston do not meet that.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 00:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, the size of the institution or whether it is private, parochial, or public is really not a measure of reputation, or of ability to do cutting-edge scholarship. Perhaps a related issue is money. Some of the budgets for the biology departments of the huge universities would dwarf Loma Linda University's whole budget for the institution. Recall the 160th ranking of the school? The ranking was based on a 4.0 scale. The 21 universities ranked at 160th all received a 2.4 for their biology departments. I don't think any of us would call that highly respected. Loma Linda made the list, it is the only biology department of an Adventist institution to do so. Andrews University was ranked 191 overall, but not for its biology department in particular. So only Loma Linda makes the list. Why? I suggest it is because of Brand's leadership. If this article stays in existence long enough, I plan to demonstrate what makes Brand's department such a notable one. In an organization the two go together. The leader gets the credit, or the blame. Some people seem to have a stereotypical view which casts religion and science as incompatible. As Ecklund discovered, a significant minority of scientists disagree. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The abundance of scholarly peer-review and citations of this person as indicated by DonaldRichardSands and Cesiumfrog does indicate the passing of WP:PROF. While many might not agree with him, controversial opinions and possibly discredited theories is not a basis of deleting a biography.--Oakshade (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's been some good faith attempts to build the article up in recent hours, but too much of it has been on the basis of very slim pickings (bare mentions, in one case in an iUniverse, and thus self-published, source). I would therefore recommend that commentators check the sources (and their publisher) as part of their evaluation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is pleasant to see good faith attempts noted. Re: iUniverse, I wondered about it, but went ahead and used it anyway. Hrafn pointed out its self-published nature. The iUniverse citation has been removed. I agree that it will help for anyone who can to double-check the sources cited in the article. Lately, I have been including what seem to be evidence of some level of notability. As I have studied further it seems that both sides of the Creationist-Naturalistic divide recognize Brand's civil manners. I find Martin Lockley's assessment of Brand to be quite refreshing. He strongly disagrees with Brand's conclusions but applauds his attitude. Lockley would make a good Wikipedian. lol DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: less good faith can be imputed to larding up the article with such trivia as the fact that an Adventist newsletter reports that he once received a $50 book prize and with the pseudoscientific rag Creation, the only third-party source for his purported "scientific" endevours in the field of Taphonomy. Leave aside the bare mentions and the affiliated sources, and all that is left is Lockley (whose coverage of Brand is restricted to a single book and the Coconino Sandstone footprint claims contained therein -- hardly the basis for a well-rounded biography). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC) (Parenthetically, how many articles on prominent scientists have so little to say that they stoop to discussing what courses they are currently teaching? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC) )[reply]
A bit of scratching around reveals that Brand's department ranks only 160th among US Biology departments -- not exactly "highly respected", and offering little prominence to its chairman. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article Higher education in the United States says: "According to UNESCO the US has the second largest number of higher education institutions in the world, with a total of 5,758, an average of more than 115 per state... The U.S. Department of Education shows 4,861 colleges and universities." Depending on how many of these have a biology department, 160th can be quite notable. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the ranking of universities quite interesting. Is Loma Linda's Biology Department respectable, highly regarded, or a diploma mill level? The report Hrafn refers to (I think) lists 21 university biology departments at the 160th rank. Here is the list:

Albany Medical College, Drexel University (College of Medicine), Florida Institute of Technology, Florida International University, Georgia State University, Loma Linda University, Louisiana State University School of Medicine--Shreveport, Northern Arizona University, Ohio University, Oklahoma State University, Southern Methodist University, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, SUNY Upstate Medical Center, University at Albany--SUNY, University of Houston, University of Massachusetts--Boston, University of Mississippi Medical Center, University of New Hampshire, University of South Carolina, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Wright State University

Kind of interesting. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we use this ranking, it is probably more accurate to describe Loma Linda Univeristy's Biology Department as respectable rather than highly respectable. The rankings allow a person to show their own subtle biases regarding the matter. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That UNESCO figure will definitely include community colleges, and quite probably any number of smaller and/or more specialised institutions, such as seminaries. There is no reason to consider 160th to be an indicator of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of us are experts, or even knowledgeable, on what makes 160th notable or not. My question remains. How many departments of biology are there in the United States, and more importantly, what is the significance of being 160th? How many really large universities are there with tens of thousands of students? Perhaps a more revealing fact would be how has the university's accrediting agency rated them? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with the recent edits, there are no substatial secondary sources that establish notability for inclusion on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dominus, What is a 'substantial' secondary source? How does one tell the difference between that and an insubstantial one? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources currently in the article, the only one that is useful in determining notablility is Numbers, and Brand rates only a footnote in that. Good sources include in-depth news stories in nationwide independent media, or substantial mention in widely read academic reviews on creationism or paleontology. Sorry, but from what I could find on the internet, it seems this guy is in no way prominent enough in either the scientific community or the creationist community to warrant inclusion on WP. See WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is changing. I do not have much experience with AfD and how an admin makes a final decision. I assume that the deciding admin will thoroughly exam everything. This AfD has caught the attention of two deletion lists: list of Science-related deletion discussions and list of Academics_and_educators-related deletion discussions. Those of us interested in further editing the Leonard R. Brand page have been making changes to it and debating those changes on the article's talk page. Lately, the article has been changing significantly every day. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Due to the large amount of citation in various journals, academic work, relevance to the "origins" discussions, etc.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Discussion on Another Page. Hi, I have started a discussion re: Wikipedia examples of articles barely meeting Notability standards at the Notability Noticeboard. Input from anyone/everyone would be helpful. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed this notice here as a courtesy to those who have an interest in the Brand article and the discussion about its notability. Please do not remove this unless you are a WP admin. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Shopping: I have identified in bold highlights so those not interested in my lengthy section can move on to other things. Also, if an admin considers this analysis inappropriate for this AfD page, they are welcome to suggest where I should discuss this, or delete the whole thing. However, and I repeat, I believe that the person doing any kind of changing of this should be an admin. (I like the admin nomination process. I think it provides Wikipedia a way to develop its own 'professionals'.)

Forum Shopping cont. Apparently, this action of notice has been thought of by at least two editors, not admins, as forum shopping. These two editors ignored another Wikipedia rule, i.e. Assume Good Faith (AGF). I have found that if we as editors practice AGF even our discussion of differences can be pleasant experiences. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Shopping cont. When I placed the notice, I was not aware of the WP concept of forum shopping. So, I have briefly studied about it. I can see how this notice can be viewed that way. However, when I sought information on notability on the notability discussion board, I mentioned the Brand article. I thought that those involved would consider it unfair if they were not advised of my mentioning it. So, I have wondered, How do you properly advise fellow editors when they are discussed on another forum? Do I mention it on their talk pages? Where is the line between that and canvassing. Of course, this is an AfD discussion. It is not necessarily a notability or forum shopping discussion. Wikipedia rules can be confusing. Don't get me wrong. I like the free encyclopedia concept and the Wikipedia notion of rules, guidelines, and ignore all rules. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Shopping cont. I come from a faith background where 'the law' is very important. The merciless application of law has been a societal problem for thousands of years. Some call it legalism. Some want rules which can be applied like a logical science. Others are more flexible. In my faith community we have this spectrum of attitude toward law. It is normal in society. Wikipedia has certain policies which touch on its own law such as AGF and IAR. As a reformed legalist, I find Wikipedia's application of its own rules interesting. (I have even discovered the Wikipedia Rule Book.)DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Shopping, concluded. Consider this "If a dispute is in a particular topic area or concerns the application of a particular policy or guideline, posting a request to the noticeboard may attract people with some experience in that area." This is a quote from Wikipedia's Consensus page. (Another important WP concept). My notice was the reverse of this. Rather than inviting those reading the Notability noticeboard about our discussion here, I began a discussion there and, out of courtesy to those here, told them about my discussion there. Now if everyone can Assume Good Faith the problem can be worked through. Some kindly editor can educate me to the process and since we both assume good faith in the other, the misunderstanding gets resolved. One editor deleted my new section on the notability notice board. I restored it. He then accused me of intellectual dishonesty. The other editor put a strike out line through my notice here. Now, if both editors practiced AGF they would have brought my 'violation' of policy to my attention in an AGF attitude and the problem would have been resolved and we would all be friends, perhaps. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Hrafn is a rabid anti-creationist and anti-christian whose agenda is to eliminate anything that even hints at a NPOV on creationism and Christianity. He twists otherwise good WP policy to force his agenda and threaten his opposers. He is a bully. 75.244.91.121 (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)— 75.244.91.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I consider this input by 75.244.91.121 an illustration as to why unregistered users should not be allowed to take part in these discussions. Re: Hrafn, he certainly can defend himself, but I have worked quite intensely with him and have found his input to be helpful. His understanding of Wikipedia rules and how to correctly apply them is impressive. As we have worked together on the Brand article and on other articles in the past, Hrafn's critical input has been necessary and productive. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citability in GScholar is pretty meager, with top cited paper having a measly 39 hits. Much much less than we ordinarily require for satisfying WP:PROF#C1. Moreover, WP:PROF makes it clear that WP:FRINGE and pseudoscience cases are generally to be routed through WP:BIO and there is even less evidence that the subject passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the reasons stated by DonaldRichardSands, Cesiumfrog, Fountainviewkid, Oakshade, and Hrafn, who pointed out that one of Brand's theories had been widely debunked (if widely debunked, then widely noted, therefore indicating NOTABILITY). Also because the article keeps improving in sources and bolstering the notability of the subject. And, finally, because the motives of some commenting here are not to improve Wikipedia by exposing readers to a range of competing ideas but to suppress, by a hateful deletionism, ideas that don't happen to conform to their personal POV. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore: I just did the simple Google search by clicking on the link above, "Leonard R. Brand" -wikipedia. The man gets 544,000 hits. This number alone moots all other notability discussion, so why are we having it? --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the theories had been widely debunked then that would indeed contribute to notability. Unfortunately, the sources for the wide debunking do not seem to be sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I tried so hard to AGF. Do you mean Hrafn was talking through his hat? My belief in Wikipedia is dashed! --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such fine parsing of my every word. I meant "widely" relative to the (relatively meagre) coverage Brand's Coconino claims received -- not that a condemnation of his claims was posted on the noticeboard of every Geology department in the world. In any case, this very narrow coverage on a single issue could easily be accomodated, per WP:BLP1E, in Flood geology -- as I suggested in my nomination. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the real reason you want this article deleted, Hrafn? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, it is good to see some dialogue regarding this deletion nomination. We have only just begun developing the article. Brand is one of the few Creationists who has been noted and quoted by authors writing on the Creationist movement. The book of naturalistic scientist Martin Lockley, a specialist in track fossils, has been especially interesting. Brand is seldom criticized for his scientific methods, or creative scientific questioning, just his conclusions. This collegial treatment of Brand by Lockley, Hoope, Toumey (still to come), Young, Stearley, Giberson and Yerxa is impressive, and, IMO, notable. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenatipo: the real reason that I nominated this article for deletion is ... deathly hush ... I'm a longstanding regular on WP:WikiProject Creationism. What were you expecting? That I'd admit to membership in the Evil Atheist Cabel™? As such, I very regularly create, expand, rewrite, merge or nominate for deletion articles in this field. I am for example the predominate author of George McCready Price and Geoscience Research Institute, and responsible for the current structure of Creation–evolution controversy (one of my first projects within Wikipedia). Take a look at the edit history of just about any article on creationism or a creationist and you'll most probably find that I have edited it at some stage -- take a look at the edit history of its talkpage and you'll most probably find that I was the one who rated it for the Wikiproject. I'm afraid you've failed to even insult me with your veiled accusation -- yes, I'm simply laughing at you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't figure you for a member of the Evil Atheist Orthography Club, trade-marked or otherwise. Are you sure you didn't mean Deletionism instead of Creationism? I'm laughing at you, too. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (i) I would like to apologise for mis-speaking above. I said "his [Brand's] claims" had been widely debunked. It would be more accurate to state that it is 'claims of underwater creation of the Coconino Sandstone footprints' generally that have been debunked, as (a) Brand isn't the only one making them (Andrew A. Snelling and Steven A. Austin have also made them independently) & (b) not all of the debunking will necessarily be addressed at them specifically, as opposed to the claims generally. TalkOrigins Archive lists the following sources (here and here) as controverting these claims:
1. Lockley, M. G., 1992. Comment and reply on "Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin" Geology 20(7): 666-667.
2. Lockley, M. and A. P. Hunt, 1995. Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States. New York: Columbia University Press.
3. Loope, D. B., 1992. Comment and reply on "Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin" Geology 20(7): 667-668.
4. Schur, Chris, 2000. Trace fossils and sedimentary structures: The Permian Coconino sandstone. http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/cocotr.html^{[full citation needed]}
5. Hunter, R. E., 1977. Basic types of stratification in small eolian dunes. Sedimentology 24: 361-387.
6. McKee, E. D., 1979. A study of global sand seas: Ancient sandstones considered to be eolian. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1052, Reston, VA: USGS.
7. Reineck, H.-E. and I. B. Singh, 1980. Depositional Sedimentary Environments, 2nd ed. Berlin: Spinger-Verlag.

As far as I know, the first three sources do specifically discuss Brand. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just did the simple Google search by clicking on the link above, "Leonard R. Brand" -wikipedia. The man gets 544,000 hits. This number alone moots all other notability discussion, so why are we having it? --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complete BOLLOCKS. Google counts do not establish notability. Reliable third-party sources do. And so far, I seen none except Numbers, who gives Brand only a passing mention in a footnote. Furthermore, if I follow the Google hits out to the end, there are only 180 hits. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're having it because WP:GOOGLEHITS is widely acknowledged as a really lousy argument -- so only "moots" itself. I would also point out that the first hits that your search generates are to www.rareresource.com (WP:CIRCULAR) & www.llu.edu (Brand's employer). "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" this really really ain't. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, never let common sense interfere with your agenda, I always say. (And, don't forget your rabies shots!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bald assertions of "common sense" generally mean that you lack an actual argument -- and have about as much impact as replacing the text in question with an equal number of exclamation marks. See WP:NOCOMMON. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia needs is a rule that prevents people from attempting to delete articles when the motivation to delete is their own POV, not any intention to improve the encyclopedia -- especially when the article is in the gray area of notability, like this one may be. I'm an inclusionist. Borderline cases, like this one, should default to KEEP. (Such a rule would certainly give you much more time to be doing something productive). --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kenatipo, thanks for your continued interest in this discussion. Regarding your concern re: motivation to delete is their own POV. My question would be how does a person know the motivation of someone else? I have had my motivation misunderstood here. The WP idea of AGF has to do with judging motives. The AGF guidelines say, "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." Lately, I have begun to think of certain tough-minded editors as dutch uncles, though probably most of them are younger than I am. :) A WP dutch uncle is an editor who issues frank, harsh, and severe comments and criticism to educate, encourage, or admonish another editor. Maybe we should start a page where we recommend this as a formal WP concept. The Dutch Uncle concept helps to transform hurt feelings into positive regard. We all find harsh or severe criticism of our work difficult. My mother was a tough-talking, perhaps severe, critic within her faith community. Some loved her for it, others seemed to hate her. She had a cat. One day it died. She cried quietly, just noticeable tears. I saw her tender compassionate side. After that, I advised her to stay involved with her critics because sooner or later they too would see her compassionate side. We need to practice this here at Wikipedia. It works. Brand is a role model for this Assume Good Faith principle. The literature, secondary sources and his own writings, establish this. This is one of the things that make Brand a notable person. Again, thanks for your input, it helps the process. Cheers. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having read the article, there is nothing that establishes Brand's notability. His field is not unique, nor is his philosophy. For such a "notable" person, his biography is paltry, and there should be much more discussion of his work if that avenue was notable. MSJapan (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MSJapan, welcome to the discussion. I have been the principal editor since the article was nominated for deletion on August 4th. Hrafn has been a constant adviser and dutch uncle critic. I got involved after reading a note left on a project page. WP has a spectrum of notability compliance, it seems. WP Consensus is built by discussion which, for me includes comparisons. Three articles have caught my attention regarding notability: 1826 Miller (notability seems low), Geography of Italy (no reference section; notability seems to be inherent even though WP does not like that notion), and Karl W. Giberson (an impressive short article with established notability). Giberson is involved in the Creation-Evolution controversy, as member of the Nazarene church. The Nazarene church has embraced mainline Geology whereas Brand's Seventh-day Adventist Church has moved the other way. One of Giberson's students did some early work on the article. Giberson, as a WP editor, corrected some of information himself in an open and responsible manner: On October 21, 2006, he wrote: "(I am updating and enlarging a bio of myself that was written by one of my students. I have removed trivial information and added more appropriate content.)" His article asserts more evidence for notability than Brand's, but it is not very thorough in its linking assertions to citations. His accomplishments are impressive. His specialty is physics and theology. As a scientist, Brand is more notable. As a Creationist, Giberson is far more notable. It is like comparing apples and oranges. I believe that Brand's article has already established enough notability for the article to be kept. There is much more to do. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of the Leonard R. Brand article on August 4 with that on August 9

Note to admins. If this analysis is inappropriate, feel free to edit or remove it. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what the article looked like when it was first nominated for deletion on August 4, 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonard_R._Brand&diff=442966291&oldid=442862123

Of course, here is what it looks like, today: Leonard R. Brand

Some informal statistics:

There have been over 200 edits in the last six days.
On August 4, the text count for the body of the article, including the lead = about 150 words
On August 9, the text count for the body of the article, including the lead = about 950 words
The Selected Bibliography section has not changed. It has 9 entries.
The See Also section entries have changed from 1 to 3.
On August 4, the list of references = 5.
On August 9, the list of references = 21
Six editors have contributed to the article since its nomination and two bots.
Of the six, two have contributed the vast majority of the edits.
Of the two most active editors, one has added most of the new material to the article while the other has provided critical review and advice.

These are just the basics.

Some reflection on the data:

> Edit count includes everything including minor edits

> Word count importance depends on the quality of the writing.

> The references section count depends on the quality of the sources included.

> The text is being actively edited currently.

Disclosure: I have also placed this info on a section in the Leonard R. Brand article's talk page.

End of Comparison.

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, in 5 days you have done ABSLUTELY NOTHING to establish the notablity of the subject of the article. NOTHING AT ALL. There are still exactly ZERO reliable independent sources that establish notablity, and that is the ONLY number that counts here on AfD. The only notable things you did manage to do was make a complete mess of this AfD page and shoot yourself in the foot with your forum shopping. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dominus, we disagree again. The process continues. It will be interesting to see what the responsible admin will decide. It has been quite a ride. I have learned lots about Wikipedia: its rules, culture, etc. Wikipedia's 'social life' has gotten me through many a long night. Hrafn, has been especially helpful, like a tough-talking dutch uncle. I have learned lots about Brand and have been surprised at the positive words that Creationists and Naturalistic Scientists have expressed for him. I have learned about some impressive scientists, and other academics, and have become more acquainted with others: Lockley, Hoope, Numbers, Ecklund, Young, Stearley, Giberson and Yerxa. These have all been cited in the Leonard R. Brand article. You are right, there is still more to do. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have enjoyed comparing 'Keep' decisions. Two articles of interest to me are: 1826 Miller (an asteroid) and the Geography of Italy which has no reference section or any cited references. When I look over other articles, our discussion here takes on new meaning and perspective. Remember that Wikipedia is a consensus building community. Some here speak like they are commanders of others. They seem to think that stern warnings and a dominating stance is what poor souls like me need. Don't get me wrong, I really learn quickly when given stern-talking tough love. I even learn from those who find me really annoying as long as they tell me why I annoy them. :( DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of my most interesting recent discoveries is that Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Harmonious Editing Club. I looked over their short list principles, seven in all, and realized that I have not been keeping to some of them. So, I joined up. I figure that being a member will help me keep on my toes, so to speak. It might even help me keep from shooting myself in the foot in the future. There are 227 members currently. I haven't looked carefully. Maybe you are already a member. If not, come along. Well, even if you don't join, let's agree to be respectful of each other, even when we disagree. Leonard R. Brand is a good role model for this, even if it is determined that he is not notable. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for opining on the larger world of Wikipedia. But, this AfD process needs some reflection. Maybe we need to have a subpage where we can relax and just enjoy talking about what we do. I think this kind of reflective dialogue is good for all of us. I find it therapeutic. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I first saw this AFD links at the Notability noticeboard and have been watching with interest since. I don't have a dog in the fight from a theological/political/philosophical perspective, I'm just looking at it based on the merits of the article, and I'm afraid that I don't think this subject is notable. Most of the existing sources are problematic for various reasons. 5 of the 21 sources are Brand works, whereas the article should be based primarily on secondary sources. And of the secondary sources used, it some seem to only mention Brand briefly and in passing (like the Ronald Numbers source), or are brief mentions of arguably trivial information (like this and this, which only mention him in brief sentences, and in my view fails WP:GNG because even if the sources are reliable, they don't constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources"). Many sources are used not about Brand but about how people feel about views that he holds (like the Ecklund source). Some are clearly not reliable sources, like this blurb for his book or this source, which doesn't discuss him in depth anyway. Perhaps more importantly, I found practically nothing about Brand on my searches in Lexis Nexis, Newsbank or Google News and, if he were notable, it wouldn't be so difficult to find those sources. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hunter Kahn, after looking over your user page, I am impressed with the list of your accomplishments. And, your assessment is appreciated and insightful. I still have set my sights on working to save this article, so obviously we will disagree, but I agree with much of what you say, unfortunately. :) The biographical citations have not been included to establish notability, but rather to strengthen the story of Brand. Does every citation have to establish notability? Anyway, I appreciate your involvement. Come again. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe every citation has to establish notability; some can be used to back-up other statements, like the Ecklund source being used to cite how others feel about his views. But the majority of the information about the subject should come from verifiable, secondary sources that are independent from the subject per the WP:GNG and I'm afraid I'm not convinced this particular article meets that threshold yet. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Notability

In brief: Brand is notable because he moves in both Creationist and Scientific circles and is accomplished and well-regarded by both. His uniqueness along with adequate mention of him in secondary sources makes him notable.

Wikipedia Consensus building is a process of thinking together. In this thinking, all sorts of circumstances arise. Consider Leonard R. Brand. From all I have read about him, he is a quiet unassuming scientist who does respected science, has written a book attempting to help his fellow Christians think more scientifically. He is welcomed as a speaker at meetings wherever he goes among the creationist community. He is spoken of respectfully by all the scientists who have written about him. These same scientists admire his attitude of geniality as do the creationists who talk about him. I challenge anyone reading this to find one criticism leveled against Brand's manners or his scientific methods. Yes, both scientists and creationists disagree with him, but they speak kindly of him. Now, concerning his notability. How many people are respected and practitioners in both communities? Who else is doing active research and is a YEC as well? All of these facts, demonstrated in the secondary sources, show notability. Why shouldn't Wikipedia have an article on this person. Secondary sources establish his notability. It has been said that it is so difficult to establish Brand's notability because he is not a confrontationalist, and thus those who study the controversy don't know about him because he is quietly going about his business of doing science and teaching Creationist how to more scientific. It has been mentioned that Loma Linda University's Biology Department ranks 160th along with 21 other universities, such as Georgia State. How did Loma Linda University attain this status? It is the only Seventh-day Adventist University Biology Department to even make the list. Who is the head of that noteworthy department? Brand is. I suggest to you, that his leadership as department chair has made it so that Loma Linda University has risen to being included on this list. One final thought, Brand is the member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and is one of their foremost researching scientist authors. The SDA Church has well over 10,000,000 members. It is obviously a notable organization. And Brand is considered a scientific leader among them. He is notable. :) (revised) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald, can you point out specifically which secondary sources describe these claims you are making here? Specifically about his unassuming and non-confrontational manner, the admiration his peers have expressed for him, his respect in both communities, his role in elevating the status of Loma Linda University's biology department and his recognition as one of the foremost researching scientist authors among the Seventh-day Adventist Church? — Hun ter Ka hn 03:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DRS: the problem with your 'comment' is that it does not in fact address 'Notability' as Wikipedia defines it. It is a comment on why Brand is unusual (he is not unique -- there are a reasonable number of scientifically qualified creationists, a reasonable number of non-confrontational ones, and even a few besides Brand who are both), and and a comment on why many might consider him admirable. Notability, as Wikipedia defines it, requires "significant coverage" (being "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail") not merely "adequate mention". There are a very large number of people who are admirable that do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. There are also a large number of topics that are unusual, but insufficiently well-documented to meet them. Therefore demonstrating that he is unusual and/or admirable is largely a non sequitor to this discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hrafn, it seems to me that it is a judgment call. You are saying what this WP notability policy says: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. "

Notice the need for judgment, thus consensus"

It should be "worthy of notice"
It should be significant
It should be interesting, or
It should be unusual enough to deserve attention or be recorded.

These are very subjective standards. It is easy to understand why people dispute what is notable. What I believe is worthy of notice, significant, interesting, unusual enough to deserve attention will be different than what someone else's believes. The idea that this notability policy is cut and dried is misguided. So, this article is at the mercy of editor consensus, just like every other article in dispute. This consensus method is the best of all methods, IMO. But, it is a rough and tumble world. I like the experience and wisdom that you and others bring to the discussion. I like Wikipedia's dependance on administrator oversight because administrators themselves must go through a decision making process to become administrators. In any society, this allows the effective and careful editors to rise in the community. Cheers DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One part of the Leonard R. Brand article which has been considered trite or trivial by some editors is the mention of the $50 Scholarship from the Edward C. Jaeger fund. Note that one of the notability notions is that if the item is interesting it is notable. Now, to me that award is interesting. It was a book award where the recipient was to use the money to buy reference books, not textbooks. Why? It was a simple way to encourage scholarship. For a poor kid in university, what an enjoyable experience to go hunting for a book you always wanted on birds, or whatever. To me, that's interesting. What is interesting to me is not to someone else. That's okay, really. To me it is a notable biographical fact. And lots of these little 'interesting' facts make for an interesting (notable) person. The same goes for 1826 Miller. Who cares? Well, ask an astronomer. Do you see what I am saying? WP Notability is quite subjective. As editors we shouldn't browbeat each other because we see things differently. Some of you reading this are battle hardened veterans of Wikipedia's wars, or disputes. The experience gained over time by such encounters garners respect, at least by me. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hunter_Kahn: I will work on a comprehensive answer to your question over the next little while. But, to help you see where I am so far, I will post this and then develop it further. I have listed each of your questions and have put the source author next to the question. All of these authors are cited in the article except Toumey. His book is my most recent interest. As an anthropologist, Toumey interviewed the GRI staff and discussed the GRI scientists' views as a united, coherent group. This includes Brand.

Unassuming and non-confrontational manner? Lockley, Wise, Toumey
The admiration his peers have expressed for him? Lockley, Wise, Toumey, Hoope,
Respect in both communities? Toumey, Lockley
His role in elevating the status of the biology department?
One of the foremost researching scientist authors in SDA Church? Andrews University Press promotional paragraph for the book. (a disputed source)

If you have time, read Toumey's section on GRI. Since GRI is treated as a coherent group of scientists and since he quotes Brand as one of the GRI scientists, the GRI section helps to explain Brand's views. Toumey quotes Brand on two points, i.e. the need for civility and the need to not advocate junk science. Toumey explains GRI's relationship to other creationist organizations. He describes GRI's critical approach to the other Creationist groups. Yet, at the end of the section, on page 141, he describes the positive relationship between GRI and the other Creationist groups. Toumey also describes the Adventist idea of holistic truth. He points out that Adventists believe there are various sources of truth, not just the Bible. He says this sets Adventists (like Brand) apart from other Creationists. Toumey also describes the dual nature of Adventism. Within the Church, they hold strongly to Biblical YEC Creationist views, while outside the church they defend the need for doing good science and criticize their fellow creationist for advocating unscientific positions. This explains Brand's position. Brand is a cautious supporter of YEC creationism and a staunch supporter of the scientific method even to the extent that if science cannot verify an element of creationist thought, first admit it, then do more scientific inquiry. This combination makes Adventism and Brand in particular unique in the realm of Creationism.

Here is the online information for the book:

Toumey, Christopher P. (1994). God's own scientists: creationists in a secular world. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. p. 289. ISBN 0-8135-2043-6.

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been principal editor since the Brand article has been nominated for deletion. I have worked really hard to document the notability of this man and have been quite impressed with his accomplishments, the rapport between him and other scientists and creationists. His studies of Shearwaters (1966) (not yet in the article) Chipmunks (only in the bibliography), Cactus Mice (not yet in the article), the infamous Salamander tracks study, the fossil whales of Peru, the fossil turtles of the Bridger Wilderness in Wyoming, the Wyoming Geological Survey's acknowledgement of his map making reports (not yet in the article), his early experience (1970) working on Dr. Nuefeld's Loma Linda University team (the same year he received his doctorate) in discounting the Paluxy man tracks controversy (not yet in the article), the Baldwin statement that the Adventist Church will find new Creationist inspiration from his research, the fact that Brand led the way in getting the Adventist church to approve a university program to train its members in Geology and Paleontology. His philosophy of science which diverges from other creationist groups, and the well-nigh universe accolades for his advocacy of respectful dialogue. That, to me makes a notable person. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have decided that I have expended enough energy on trying to save the Brand article. If the decision is to keep it, I will enjoy working on it some more. It is just too hard to fuss with another editor to this extent. IMO, Dr. Brand is a notable figure in America, unassuming but a very interesting person who's story is worthy of notice. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I have slightly modified my plan: I am still addicted to discovery. I find it intellectully rewarding to study Brand's story. I am continuing to study him, but I don't plan to be involved in the day by day skirmishes, or to add more opinion here in the near future. I may do plan to make a few additions to the article but only after I have worked offline for most of the time. Also, I plan to work on solving the issues raised by the tags. I have defended the 'keep' side and my reasons hopefully are clear to all. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More time is needed. As I stand away from disputing the article, I continue to study about Brand. I plan to summarize my findings here within a few days. But, I have this brain wave. :) If the admins who decide on this article can grant me time to demonstrate what can be done, say for a month without editorial interference (but lots of counsel), I believe that I can demonstrate the notability and wisdom of a WP article on Brand. I don't know the protocol on such a request and admin guidance is always welcomed. Maybe, some sandbox time would help. When I first discovered this article, it was already nominated for deletion. I would like to work in a detailed fashion similar to what I have done on the history sections of Graham Maxwell, Southern Adventist University, Andrews University, etc. I don't consider any of these articles perfect, but they demonstrate the detail work that gives depth to any study. It is just a proposal. In the end, I will support the deciding admins conclusion. If the article is deleted after the month, I will still have learned about doing research and working on a really tough WP case. Cheers DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I find it very hard to believe that more time would be needed. It seems to me that you've been working on the article frequently throughout the week, and you've posted much more content here in this AFD much more frequently than you'd see in most other AFD discussions. Plus your request for a month of time "without editorial interference" isn't really how Wikipedia works. Nobody owns any article and you can't ask for exclusive access to it or special provisions like this. I also think it would set a bad precedent if after a week of AFD discussion and editing that failed to turn up any more secondary sources was concluded with an editor getting a month of time to see if he can maybe get the article up to par when a week wasn't enough. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter, thanks for your insight. This attempt to save the article is very hard, I must admit. Brand's notability is not easy to establish; maybe it can't be. This is one of my first attempts to save a difficult article and I have written way too much here, I agree. Also, in my learning to use the 'help me' tag, another editor has said pretty much the same thing you have said. If nothing else, this process is helping me be more careful with my edits and in what articles I choose to invest my time. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sands Summary List: I am listing all my points used to demonstrate notability on my talk page, HERE. It is a work in progress. As always, I submit to admin directives on protocol and kindly counsel from all. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even after a week of heavy editing, the article contains NO SOURCES that establish the notability of the subject in accordance with WP policy. I wish to confirm my vote for Delete having taken all the recent edits into account, as well as all of the discussion on this page, the article talk page, and the user pages of the editors involved. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. It is not correct to say that there are no sources that establish notability. As I mentioned above, I found around 180 cites on Google Scholar. These (apart from self-cites) are highly reliable sources. However, they give an h-index of only 9, which is not quite enough to establish notability under WP:Prof#C1 according to past precedent on these pages. My recommendation is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Those sources are reliable, but they are not sufficient to establish notability to the level required by WP policy, as you have noted. Thanks for the info on the h index.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whilst a large amount of bare citation may (or in this case may not) add up to a sufficiently high h-index rating to meet WP:Prof#C1, they may still fall afoul of the WP:PROF#General notes: caveat that "it is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I think the level of reliable independent sources on this topic is so meagre that even if Brand met any of the criteria, we'd still have to look very seriously at deleting. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, as I noted in my comment above, WP:PROF makes it clear in several different places that WP:FRINGE and pseudo-science cases, like the one here, are generally to be routed through WP:BIO anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Compare Marcus Ross article with Leonard R. Brand

I realize I am bringing to this discussion a controversial post. If I remember correctly WP policy does not encourage comparing articles, remember 1826 Miller. Except: Wikipedia Policy does say that it is a goal for all articles to be of uniform notability, etc. WP policy asks that the focus be on the reasons for the difference not just the difference. Admins, I submit to your judgment on this. I accept the guidance of other civilized editors as well. Now, look over these two WP articles. They are both YECs. They are both Paleontolgists. Compare the bibliographies. Compare the complexities of the case for notability. Compare the quality of notable references. I like the Marcus Ross article. It is brief and clean. The Brand article is still cumbersome and in its rough stage. Any thoughts on reasons.
#Hrafn: You actively helped develop the Marcus Ross article. What is the difference, in your view, between the notability of the two scientists? Best Regards DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "I realize I am bringing to this discussion a controversial post." You're not really bringing it to a controversial place, in my view, so much as your arguments are just misguided. As you yourself note, comparison of other articles isn't a valid deletion argument. And many of us have told you that one of the main thresholds for notability is coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The other article has it. Brand does not. — Hun ter Ka hn 20:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter. Thanks for trying to help me. I have been misguided before. :( I have also been trout slapped. :) You misquoted what I said. I presented a paraphrase of a valid exception to the no comparison notion. Here are the policy quotes that I am referring to: DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists:

"In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid... When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes... " DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists#Deletion of articles

"In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Marcus R. Ross article shows far fewer GS cites and the present one and so is more likely to be deleted if it comes to AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comparing and contrasting Brand with Ross, both articles were created by the same banned sock, and both I have had a long-standing involvement with. The obvious difference between the two is that Ross has been "the main topic" of an 1800 word profile in the New York Times. That on its own goes a very significant way towards meeting the burden of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and is an order of magnitude greater than the total third-party coverage that Brand has garnered. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other difference between the two is that the Ross article isn't larded up with (often quite trivial coverage) from affiliated sources to disguise the level of third-party content, nor is it liberally sprinkled with cherry-picked praise, often given extra prominence by ((quotation)) templates, from sources that are largely critical of Brand, or bltantant WP:Synthesis of a source that makes no mention of Brand. But then, the Ross article is not largely written by a determined WP:COI fan. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion that one article in the New York Times is worth orders of magnitude more than 200 citations in the scholarly literature, but it is not one that I agree with. I am surprised to find you defending the Marcus R. Ross article, which in my view is much worse than the present one, but I understand that creationists and their opponents often have strong views. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"Significant coverage" is defined to be "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" and "more than a trivial mention". It is clear from this that an 1800 word profile on the topic counts towards meeting the former, whereas bare citations (even if very numerous) fall afoul of the latter. In any case, I was referring to the far fewer third party sources that actually discuss (and thus give coverage of) the topic, as opposed to merely citing him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we shouldn't even be discussing the Ross article here at all. It has nothing to do with the Brand article, and it only serves to distract from the AFD at hand. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Hunter. This discussion is inappropriate for an AfD page, as it is trivial and distracting. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I first saw the article several days ago I was concerned about the sourcing and whether it would pass WP:N. I have been on the sidelines watching the article develop and it now just makes it past WP:N. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for Over-editing: I have just finished a discussion with a mentor regarding over-editing on an AfD article. As I think about the counsel, I realize I have been doing that here. My apologies. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnarok F.C.[edit]

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

No evidence of notability TonyStarks (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 11:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 11:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Can't find any indication that this amateur club is notable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is no indication of significant coverage. The club therefore fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blue Oyster Cult. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 03:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue oyster cult logo[edit]

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

It's about the logo of Blue Oyster Cult, which logo has a history. The logo does not seem notable enough to need an article, so I propose a merge. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 03:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue_Öyster_Cult#Band_name. There already appears to be a referenced discussion of the logo there, and I do not see anything in this article worth merging. VQuakr (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage in the main article is already more complete --Djohns21 (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blue Oyster Cult. This is an inferior fork of information already covered there. Carrite (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garuda fc ph[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources to show notability. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 02:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, exactly the same as an article that was previously deleted (via speedy), evidence. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 12:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, nonsense, vanity article. To begin with, the subject itself is not even notable. Keb25 (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. Deserter1 13:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fill Your Head with Rock (sampler)[edit]

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

Non-notable comp per WP:MUSIC, without even an assertion that this sampler is special. Google shows nothing exciting. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note PROD was denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was me who removed the PROD. My memory tells me that this was a significant album at the time, widely circulated, and gained UK awareness of artists as diverse as Flock, Moondog and Skin Alley. Checking the sources I see that it represented a significant push by CBS to grab the high ground as the leading "contemporary" label in the UK, & launch the double album format. Then, given it's success there, the campaign continued on an international basis. I've added a few facts to the article. I do believe the previous 'notes' could be considered cruft, and you'll note that I am not similarly defending the later samplers. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot be the only person for whom this was the defining album of my childhood, introducing me, for a limited expenditure, to a broad church of rock music. This was a far more significant album than many of the full albums from which samples were taken. I arrived here searching for the precise information that I found when I arrived. I doubt that this information is available elsewhere - certainly not as completely and sympathetically presented. Please do not delete. Theblackbadger (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While "G-d! I remember this from when I was...young" falls into the Arguments to avoid in deleton discussions category, I would have said this particular one was notable in the field of samplers, by virtue of the Billboard reference.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've edited The Rock Machine Turns You On to give some (referenced) indication of the notability of this series to the development and awareness of rock music in the UK, and will do my best to find additional refs to support it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larne Cricket Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here,here,here, here,here,here, here and here. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 01:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite protestations at the previous group AfD, a lengthy discussion at WP:CRIN and a series of recent AfDs that have resulted in deletion every time, those who have protested in the past have still not been able to provide sources for this club that would elevate it to the point of satisfying WP:GNG. It is well below the WP:CRIN standard due to its league status and lack of any apparent success in the provincial league in which it plays. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunmurry Cricket Club[edit]

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here,here,here, here,here,here, here and here. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 01:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, as per nominator & previous AfDs listed. The Junior Cup is a subsidiary cup competition of the league in question, not its main cup competition. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of sufficient notability, over and above any other cricket club. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armagh Cricket Club[edit]

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here,here,here, here,here,here, here and here. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 01:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it needs work, a lot of it. However, the club has apparently won the Senior League on three occasions. Agreed, it is the Senior League of a provincial league but there is no higher level of cricket regularly played in Ireland. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I've verged to weak keep per what Sitush said, needs some more sources though. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a small club but of some significance in that it represents an historic city, the ecclesiastical capital of Ireland for both the Protestant and Catholic communities, and it draws its playing membership and support from both communities. It deserves a proper write-up and if no-one more knowledgeable about cricket than me offers to do so, I'll give it a go in a few weeks. Brocach (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given the lack of sources then, can I suggest that it is userfied to Brocach while he does so, because as it stands is only sourced to the club. Mt king ^(edits) 23:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice for an early renomination if the article continues to fail GNG post this current AfD Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dritok[edit]

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

WP:NOTE. Dritok appears only in In the Land of Invented Languages, and a blog post on a newspaper's web site . No mention elsewhere, and both sources are rather thin. In In the Land it is mentioned in a single paragraph on page 288-289 as part of a larger discussion about the Language Creation Conference, and that paragraph is as much about the audience as the language itself. The blog post is about an exhibit of well-known conlangs like Esperanto and Klingon that the language's creator, Don Boozer, set up at the library he works at. The third citation, the podcast, is not an independent source since Don Boozer is "secretary and librarian" of that site. Hermione is a dude (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I thought my sources would be unimpeachable. There is enough material, even if you discount the non-independent source, to write an article that goes well beyond a stub. I mean, the Cleveland Plains Dealer blog has an entire article chock-full of useable info about Dritok! I should also note that it appears in the 500-language appendix to Okrent's In the Land of Invented Languages. Okrent writes here: "I have only listed the projects that I mention in the text, along with a few other especially noteworthy or well-developed ones – languages that most of the highly regarded conlangers will have heard of". In the Land is a reliable source published by a woman who used her expertise and best judgment as to which languages are notable, so if we ever settle on a notability guideline for conlangs, being on Okrent's list will likely be one of the criteria we can use. The inclusion or non-inclusion of a language on the list is an objective criterion. Wiwaxia (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mentions this short in a book and a blog wouldn't suffice for any other subject, so I don't see why Dritok should be any different. I also think that saying Dritok is notable because Ms. Okrent says it is is a weak argument. It seems to me that conlanger Wikipedians expect people to cut them a lot of slack, but it gets silly sometimes. Og of Bashan (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentions this short in a book and a blog wouldn't suffice for any other subject." Oh, yes they would. And the mentions aren't that short. Wiwaxia (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maybe a merge with Language Creation Society?~~ The LCS article could have what it has now, with a listing of names of the main officers, but also include paragraphs on the best-known conlangs of the members of the LCS, those that have garnered independent mentions in the press or in books, with "See main article" links to those that already have full articles. In a way, this is the most logical action, as Dritok's notability is sort of reliant on the notability of the LCS and Don Boozer's EE&B exhibit. Quinoaeater (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Changing my !vote to keep, as per Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones' argument. Quinoaeater (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again one of those difficult cases. Well, blogs are certainly not the best material for sourcing, but just discarding something just because the form is that of a blog won't fly either. If a blog is written by a knowledgeable or notable person, it is as good a source as any. As for In the Land of Constructed Languages... well, it's a great book, although IMHO Arika has made some curious choices here and there, both where it comes to inclusions and omissions. But it would be a stretch to say that a bare mentioning in a book like that would be sufficient to warrant inclusion in WP. An entry in this book or similar books definitely contributes to notability, which in combination with other sources that may also contribute to it, can tipple the balance. And this seems to be the case here. This is a doubtful case, and taking an ultimate decision is a matter of goodwill. Well, I do have that goodwill and therefore I agree with Wiwaxia and say keep. As for Quinoaeater's suggestion (merge with Language Creation Society): no, I don't think that would be a good idea. That would significantly "pollute" the article with irrelevant information. A language delivered by a member of the LCS as a result of a commission to the LCS, like Dothraki, should be mentioned by all means, but that does not go for works created independently of the LCS. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 12:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what you mean by "goodwill". I don't doubt that the writers of that article had the best of intentions, but that doesn't matter when there's not much evidence of notability, especially for something as ephemeral as this. Appeals to authority and just saying "you're wrong!" like Wiwaxia is doing doesn't change anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Og of Bashan (talk • contribs) 02:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As to your comment that I just said, "You're wrong!", you provided no evidence that other topics with a similar degree of independent coverage would always or almost always get deleted, so I needed no evidence in disagreeing. You seem to be a deletionist. Well, I'm an inclusionist, and I think that if a newspaper-affiliated blog writes an article about a language and a dead-tree book includes a paragraph of about 200 words about it, that's hardly a passive mention. It's non-trivial enough to do something with. Wiwaxia (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist. What I mean by "goodwill" is that things get difficult when a subject is neither obviously notable nor obviously unnotable. Notability is not a hard criterion, mind, and as a result, the ultimate outcome is bound to become even more subjective. All in all, what you or I or St. Nicholas want should not bear any significance. Instead, it's better to look at other things, too: is the article informative? Is it well-written? Is it objective? Is it verifiably true? Once we've established that this is the case, then IMO we can invoke arguments that otherwise are completely useless, like: server space is cheap, whom does this article disturb, etc. In other words, give it the benefit of the doubt. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 09:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The WP:GNG speaks of "non-trivial" coverage. The guideline leaves it perhaps deliberately ambiguous as to how trivial is trivial, but enough coverage to write an article of this length is clearly non-trivial. All the article is from secondary sources, and it still stands at more than two screens' worth of length, not counting the AfD notice at the top. (Two of the sources are independent, too, and one is secondary but non-independent. Secondariness is distinct from independence, as independence includes intellectual independence, and as HiaD pointed out, Don Boozer is secretary and librarian of the podcast's site.)

The keyword in the GNG here is "subject". "Subject" means what something is about. In this case, the blog article is as much about Dritok and Mr. Boozer's development of it as about the Elvish, Esperanto and Beyond exhibit, perhaps even more so. Some people, oversimplifying the policy at WP:RS, say blogs are not reliable sources, but this is a blog associated with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, so this source is reliable.

HiaD has argued that the coverage in Ms. Okrent's book is as much about the audience' reaction as the language itself. But coverage of reaction is a Wikipedic part of describing something. Wikipedia articles should strive to include information that covers public reaction, reception, influence on the world and relevance to other things in addition to the obvious in-universe topical coverage. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if article's length is significant. There are many single-sentence paragraphs in Real-world history, which is not much more than a summary of the blog post (hardly unique to this article or a problem, but still), and Reception has clearly been written in a way that gives the reader the impression that there is more to the source than there is, and in fact the presence of a "reception" is itself deceptive as such sections are typically used when there has been substantial commentary on a subject or in entertainment articles where reviews are to be expected. I also think the footnotes have been deliberately arranged in a way that gives the illusion of substance and weight (by not following WP:NAMEDREFS. Og of Bashan (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a pretty bold statement, and not exactly according to the principle about assuming good faith and all that. If you ask me, this whole footnote thing has just become too damned user-unfriendly, at least for a person who is not used to all the technobabble or does not really belong to the incrowd either. It's not really fair to accuse a person of bad faith, just because he can't find his way easily through 10,000 templates and policy pages. And believe me, compared to other WP projects it is not easy go get things done here! —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 08:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's nothing malevolent about it, I only brought it up because Guideline & Policy Wonk talked about the amount of screen space the article took up. Wikipedia editors all want to present their preferred topics in the best possible light and as completely as they can, and they may also feel defensive when an article is of debatable notability as this is. As for the footnotes: consolidating them isn't an obscure policy or a piece of arcane formatting wizardry. Plenty of well-written and well-formatted Wikipedia articles use it and it took me about a minute to find the page that explained how it's done. Considering how obviously repetitive the references section is are and how well put together the rest of the article is I think that changing the impressions of casual readers is an easy assumption to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Og of Bashan (talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, it's quite possible that people sometimes do that sort of things. But I know by my own personal experience that it doesn't always work like that. The truth is, you can't peek in the head of someone you don't know, and therefore assuming that this particular author manipulated these particular references with this particular goal in mind is not only a form of completely unsubstantiated guesswork, it's just not done. Besides, even if it's true, it clearly doesn't work anyway, because even a child can see that there are only two references present there. What I really miss, in fact, are any references to the primary source, which by any standard is the main source of information about the language. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 12:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Enough sources to write a 438-word article is clearly non-trivial. Linguogeek (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The length of an article does not create notability. See Og of Bashan's comments for a good, although rather rude, counterargument. Hermione is a dude (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks as if this is going to be a No consensus close. All seven of us have referred to the GNG, and yet no one can agree over whether the coverage in these sources is significant or trivial. Linguogeek (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Give it a couple more days, I have put out a request at the village pump for more participants. Hermione is a dude (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Satori Son 01:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~Weak delete~~ - This is a borderline case of notability. This is an artifical language was invented by a person, and it's gotten some mention by invented language blogs and the like. But it barely registers a blip in Google hits. There is a book that mentions it: In the Land of Invented Languages: Adventures in Linguistic Creativity by Arika Okrent, but is that sufficient? The WP:GNG guideline may require multiple independent secondary sources, as it says: "the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources". Since the depth of coverage in that book is very minimal (a single paragraph), I conclude that multiple sources must be provided. Yet all I can find are very informal sources such as blogs and promotional material. If this invented language is truly notable, more reliable sources will mention in in the years to come, and it will be deserving of a WP article at that time.. Changing !vote from delete to keep, based on additional sources provided below. --Noleander (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note on blogs: personal blogs like, for instance, http://tselseth.blogspot.com are not considered reliable sources. Blogs affiliated with established newspapers, written by their team of writers, are considered reliable (although the comments in the comment section are not). The blog cited in the article is affiliated with the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The kybosh on blogs also does not apply to the official blogs of published experts, writing on a subject on which they are an authority. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and comment - I am the principle founder and current Chairman of the Board of the Language Creation Society. In my opinion Dritok is certainly notable inasmuch as any conlang can be. (To me, that is a very weak caveat, but I'm aware of others' different opinions.) Don Boozer was interviewed by us at http://podcast.conlang.org/2009/02/dritok-the-sound-of-no-voice-speaking/. He was also interviewed for a full segment of SETI's Are We Alone? podcast and IIRC two different Cleveland area newspapers.

Specifically regarding merger with the LCS wiki page: I believe that would be a bad idea. Donald Boozer is indeed a member of the LCS, and moreover a member of our Board and an Officer as well. However, as a conlanger he is a completely independent person. There are a very limited number of conlangs that the LCS itself has any hand in - Dothraki being one of them - and we would not want to give a false impression of our involvement or lack thereof in the independent activities of individual members. The LCS serves a community support role. Sai ¿?✍ 08:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dritok is a conlang that I have looked up before and shown to other people. Not many conlangs make that cut in my experince, so I'd say this one is more "notable" than your average conlang. Arthaey (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wiwaxia and Sai. -- Evertype·✆ 08:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wiwaxia, Sai et al. P M C 09:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the existing sources seem to me both reliable and nontrivial in their treatment of the subject, and the objection to the footnote formatting is trivial; if the article is saved from deletion, I volunteer to fix the footnotes myself - though probably not till after Worldcon. Keep especially in view of the additional sources Sai has cross-posted below; at least long enough for Wikipedia editors to familiarize themselves with these additional sources, at least one and probably two or three of which are sufficiently independent of the already-cited sources. I'll add an additional possible source here, mentioned above but not I think linked: http://radio.seti.org/episodes/Speaking_Klingon / http://media.rawvoice.com/arewealone/traffic.libsyn.com/arewealone/AWA_09-03-30.mp3 -- I'm downloading it but won't be able to listen to it right away. --Jim Henry (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources found by someone else via duckduckgo.com, passed along without comment:

NPR article http://www.theworld.org/2009/07/esperanto-klingon-blissymbolics-and-900-others-why-we-invent-languages/

Article copied from The Plain Dealer about the library exhibit. The original doesn't appear to be accessible anymore. http://starsofelbereth.blogspot.com/2008/06/cleveland-public-library-exhibit.html

http://www.suburbandestiny.com/conlang/?p=51

Copy of article from The Times. The original requires registration, etc. http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/32376

Another radio interview with Okrent http://tunein.com/program/?SegmentId=31790922&ProgramId=61903

Aho's 2010 Teaching Compilers talk references via Okrent's book http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~aho/Talks/10-03-12_SIGCSE.pdf

Podcast http://www.abc.net.au/rn/linguafranca/stories/2010/2915027.htm

-- Sai ¿?✍ 16:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the New English Review article just a one-word mention of Dritok, though? Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sum of sources cited do not satisfy WP:N. Blogs, podcasts, passing referenc4e in an article about the constructor do not add up to notability. Edison (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page on notability actually defined what significance means: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]" There is no original research in the Dritok article; every word flows directly from the reliable sources. Enough content has been extracted for an article of 438 words (if Linquogeek's count is to be believed). Based on this definition, straight from the guideline page, I would say that the guideline indicates this article should be kept. Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that's the best argument I've seen either way in this debate. It also answers concerns about whether article length is relevant to notability. If an article this long is written from the sources, without original research, then WP:GNG pretty much answers our question. Quinoaeater (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Edison. The existing sources do not (IMO) address this subject in any real detail (other than to report the existence and basic rationale of the language). Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the review of Okrent's book in What to Read This Summer -- New York Magazine 17 May 2009 42 15-22 2009 has "Okrent takes us on a tour of the most colorful attempts: Solresol, the language built entirely from the language built entirely from the seven notes of the musical scale ( statements could be sung or played on the violin); Láadan, a language to express the full range of women's experiences (ashaana = "to menstruate joyfully"); Dritok, made from chipmunk noises (clicks, pops, and hisses). She ends, delightfully, with one of the most successful, Klingon." ... just on the face of it, it's tentatively nudging into WP:notability as examples of invented music-language, gender-language, animal-language, alien-language. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solresol and Klingon have extensive, unquestioned coverage in reliable sources to establish their notability. Merely listing other constructed languages such as Láadan and Dritok in the same breath as Solresol and Klingon does not suffice to establish their notability. We can't do "notability by association". Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did you just question the notability of Láadan? Wiwaxia (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Jeremy. Subliminable (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I am a fan of constructed languages. But I thing mentioning in Okrent's book is a quite thin basis for a Wikipedia entry. It seems like the author wanted to write about constructed languages in general, with Dritok being one of the languages she happened to come across. It could be a mere coincidence that Dritok, as opposed to multitudes of other conlangs, made its way into the book. 1700-talet (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know I haven't posted here before, but I've been following Dritok for a while, and first discovered its Wikipedia article a few weeks before it was nominated for deletion. I'm Khemehekis, best known in the conlanging community as the creator of Kankonian. I just discovered that it was up for deletion. There are a lot of passionate arguments in this deletion discussion, but the most convincing seems to be Jigglypuff's argument, so I'm going to vote keep. If the sources that are currently cited in this article allow a reasonably long article that follows the sources logically without resorting to original research, than the coverage is not trivial and therefore this topic meets WP:NOTE. There are a lot of conlangers out there who would kill to have a language as notable as Dritok! Khemehekis (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Impressive knowledge of Wikipedia policies for a first time editor. Unfortunately, that is not enough for you to vote here. I think I'll give up this nomination, as the four people who voted "keep" in the span of an hour a few days ago show me that the Wikipedia community definitely supports this page. Hermione is a dude (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds like an implicit accusation of sockpuppetry. To be honest, neither can I understand why people would want to use sockpuppets, nor why others keep accusing people of being sockpuppets, because unless I am misinformed, an AFD is not a vote but a discussion, and ultimately it's the arguments that count. Personally, I'd rather listen to a first time editor who brings forward one valid point than to a person with thousands of low-value edits who only communicates in abbreviations. To me, this is a clear case of no consensus - not because of the number of people who say keep or delete, but because the same policy can be — and is — interpreted in two directions. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree, there is no consensus. However, the value of sockpuppets is obvious: it drowns out the delete votes and makes opinions seem more evenly divided than they are. As for saizai et al, if you're going to canvass for votes off of Wikipedia be less obvious about it. Four editors with identical interests show up to vote in a little more than an hour after almost a week in which only a few more had contributed? Get real. Hermione is a dude (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree canvassing outside Wikipedia in general is better to be avoided, but let's face it: it happens. But then, the same can be said about mobilising inclusionists or deletionists inside Wikipedia. Same thing: it happens and we have to live with it. On the other hand, I also don't see what is wrong about getting a few opinions from knowledgeable outsiders. Besides, none of the people you mention are newcomers at all, and even if they were, so what? It's not like the weight of a person's argument increases with his number of edits or something. Ultimately, it's good arguments that make the difference, not the mere counting of votes. That said, let's call it two weeks and conclude this discussion, since it is highly unlikely that anything shockingly new is going to come up. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 01:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creevedonnell Cricket Club[edit]

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at

which resulted in deletions. It plays at second teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 11:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as per nom, this is an identical situation to those mentioned and there is no indication of meeting GNG despite tagging & the creator being aware of the issue for some time. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator ... other, similar AfDs listed above are comparable to this one. --Noleander (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of media coverage suggesting that this is more notable than any other club. I didn't see any notable sources on both a Yahoo! and Google search. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 14:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kwon Hyi-ro[edit]

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

fails WP:Notability, no? Most notable thing about him seems to be his having been the subject of a movie, so his notability seems to hinge on the prominence of this movie. (The article, at least, needs to be rewritten to say in the intro why this person is notable.) Mayumashu (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. ("Weak" only because I cannot read Japanese, Korean, or Chinese to dig deeper.) Keep. It appears that the subject was notable for drawing attention to the discrimination of Korean people in Japan. [25] One article states that he became a "national hero in South Korea" after the standoff.[26] There are a few GBook hits in English for the "Kin Kiro Incident". There were a flurry of news hits in the US and Canada with a few different variations of his name (e.g. "Kim Hee Roo", "Kim He Ro", "Kim Hi-Ro"). Location (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per reasons above, and per improvements made. No reason for deletion or even a consideration of such.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ - Research by user Schmidt has persuaded me that this person meets the notability standards. Although it is true that he would be notable if he was a cause celebre ... but I'm not seeing the sources. I looked at the Korean WP article on him (xlated into English) and it cites a NY Times article, but I cannot find that article. The sources in the Korean WP article appear very marginal. Also, and this is important, the WP:CRIME guideline requires that a criminal can only be mentioned if the crime is " a well-documented historic event... . indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." However, the few sources I see on this person merely mention the crime as a normal crime. I don't see a single source that describes it as a noble cause vis-a-vis discrimination against Koreans in Japan. --Noleander (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIME and the event being well documented[27] and the individual being the subject of study and reports 40 years after the event.[28] User:Noleander made some points that caused me to do some digging, digging which resulted in my expanding and further sourcing the article. Per Noleander's own description, the coverage of this 1968 event in a 1969 story and a 1992 film, as well as coverage in news and books years later, show this event as "a well-documented historic event... . indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." I never heard of this fellow before I began my searches, but conclude after doing so that the man made a lasting impression on his society. Notable to Korea is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wish to withdraw my nomination. It's an entirely different page now! Mayumashu (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to have helped. And owe a debt of gratitude to all those above who pointed the way. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Zucker[edit]

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

Doesn't meet NHOCKEY. Coudnt find coverage on player from websites and has not won an award in his junior league. USA1168 (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Was the WCHA rookie of the year, meeting WP:NHOCKEY criterion #4, and also a 2nd team all-star (although the latter would not in itself meet WP:NHOCKEY).[29] Some additional independent coverage from The Hockey News available here [30] and found another small item here [31]. Additional reliable sources, though not necessarily independent, are also available to flesh out the article, such as [32], [33], [34], [35]. Other sources apparently exist as well, such as an article on twincities.com entitled "Minnesota Wild draftee Jason Zucker a hit in WCHA" that I am unable to access. Rlendog (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WCHA Rookie of the Year is not a major award so not meeting criterion #4 of NHOCKEY, and independent coverage is not substantial so not meeting GNG. Xajaso (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is rookie of the year not a major award? Previous AfD discussions have indicated that rookie of the year awards do meet criterion #4 of NHOCKEY, for example here [36] (where the ROY award had not been determined but all the voters who expressed an opinion indicated that the player in question would meet NHOCKEY if he won ROY. And that is not the only case, it is just the one I can specifically recall. Rlendog (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The WP:NHOCKEY guideline #4 states "Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league, first team all-star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as those of the Canadian Hockey League, or in a major collegiate hockey league ...". This player seems to meet that requirement, since it permits any "major award" and a "major collegiate hockey league" such as the WCHA. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - RotY from the WCHA is a 'major award' in my opinion. Captain Courageous (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NHOCKEY guideline #4, since it appears that the Western Collegiate Hockey Association (WCHA) qualifies as a "major collegiate hockey league" and being "Rookie of the Year" apparently qualifies as "preeminent honours". Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MC Gee Gee[edit]

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

A Christian rapper who released two albums in the early 90s. Reference in article and most of the references I could find were to the site Christian Music Archive. The Archive is a site where anybody can edit articles. Found two newspaper articles to her local Dallas paper about her and two other local rappers. Papers were behind a pay wall. HUGE NOTE: The article has her wrong name. She goes by MC GeGee or MC Ge Gee. There is another rapper who goes by MC Gee Gee and lets just say he loves "poop" and has some images that will haunt me forever. Bgwhite (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. Lagrange613 (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero good links on Google and Yahoo aside from MySpace and YouTube, nothing that could help the article biographically. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kylie Minogue singles discography. Courcelles 00:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secret (Take You Home)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am suggesting a redirect & merge to Kylie Minogue singles discography (not all of the info, just the info that is not OR). After years of battling with this article inside of WP:Kylie, there does not seem to be any reliable source proving this song was on the Taiwan Singles Chart (no reliable source for the chart period, for that matter). That is the important fact required for the song to meet WP:NMUSIC and have it's own article. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 12:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. If the chart position is unverifiable, then there is no other notability. Even if it were, there's no mention of the Taiwan charts at WP:BADCHARTS or WP:GOODCHARTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums_and_songs-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mary Baldwin College. Courcelles 00:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Program for the Exceptionally Gifted[edit]

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

seems to fail both wp:sp and wp:G11. I'm nominating it here rather than with a speedy delete because there are some serious sources in the external links section, although none of them are actually cited in the article. however, the reputable sources seem to be profiles of students who attended the program rather than about the program itself. also, much of the editing was done by users named Pegadmit and PEGdirector, suggesting serious wp:coi. I can't see how to edit this to achieve anything like wp:npov. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Mary Baldwin College - The "serious sources" listed in the external links section (articles about this program in the Washington Post and US News & World Report) indicate notability per the general notability guideline. The fact that the article is an advert and doesn't have inline citations to its sources are reasons to clean it up, not delete it. Since the program is operated at Mary Baldwin College, it might be appropriate to merge it there instead of maintaining it as a stand-alone article. --Orlady (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To the college. Worth mentioning, not well enough sourced for a stand-alone article. There is not much salvagable from the present spammy promotional piece of writing. If kept, it should be moved to [[Program for the exceptionally gifted {Mary Baldwin College)]] since it is not the only such program so titled in the history of education. See also [37]. Many of the news articles appear to have originated as press releases sent by the college out to the hometown papers of students admitted to or graduating from the program, though expanded with interview of the student and family. Their occurrence may overstate the notability of the program, and may not be as "independent" as if the coverage had originated with the local paper. Edison (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the college article. This program is indeed mentioned quite a bit in Google, and even a couple of books mention it in passing. But there is not enough focus on it, that is, dedicated, in-depth discussion, in these sources. --Noleander (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Stable[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Coverage is limited to local minor sources, does not meet general notability guidelines. A group of athletes training together is inherently not notable and the sources either do not mention group, or are local CutOffTies (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. There's only one source providing non-trivial coverage, the local Gazette.Net article, so the "multiple sources" requirement of the WP:GNG is not met. — Satori Son 01:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep, and rename to Roman-Moorish kingdoms following PWilkinson's suggestion. I've done the rename DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Domain of Moor[edit]

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

Contested prod. Of the three sources listed, two do not even mention this area; the third states, correctly, that it was conquered by the Arabs (from the Byzantines, who took it from the Vandals). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Hoax. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vandals. I do not accept that it is a hoax, but the subject is much more fully covered in my target to which Vandal Kingdom, which might be a better title, is a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename (and rewrite as I have partly done). I also do not accept that the article is a hoax - it looks to me as if the original author (whose first language, I would guess, is not English) thought he was filling a gap in Wikipedia with a broadly accurate article but actually made a number of mistakes, which I hope I have now mostly corrected. And I really don't know where the article's current title came from - it needs to be called something like Roman-Moorish kingdoms (plural rather than singular - there were apparently a number of them). Also, I do not believe that a redirect to Vandals would be appropriate, as the article seems to have been intended to relate to areas over which the Vandals rarely if ever seem to have had firm control and which do not seem to be currently covered in Vandals - but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise on this. PWilkinson (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. The article does not seem to be a hoax. I have mentioned the map that shows a province or kingdom of some sort that seems similar to this "domain of Moor." Perhaps its sources may explain something. Anyway, I think this article is based on a real domain of some sort (a different article name would be better), and the current revision looks fine. DCI2026 17:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This appears to be a legitimate, if minor, history topic, but the sources seem very few and far between. Would the material be better off in a parent article, such as Praetorian prefecture of Africa? --Noleander (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename The subject of Roman-Moorish kingdoms seems to legitimately exist, as discussed here. The Amazigh State seems to be another example of this. All of the sources i'm going through, when discussing Roman-Moorish kingdoms, seem to point out that it is a very, very obscure part of history that isn't very well known at all. There is also some discussion of such a place in the footnote here. Some discussion here as well. Silver seren^C 21:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H2Z[edit]

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

I cannot find any significant coverage that shows this subject meets the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 23:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and, more importantly, WP:Reliable sources: "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." — Satori Son 01:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Satori Son. --Noleander (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any good sources. This appears to just be another musician with a Myspace page. Joe Chill (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS (no sources at all in the article, and I couldn't find anything in a Google search). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete side is quite correct here, the lack of sourcing is a major problem. Find some, and we can revisit this, come talk to me. Courcelles 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BDJS Fernando[edit]

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

A Sri Lankan Family Physician. One reference is an letter to the editor and all other references given in article are not about Dr. Fernando, but have him in passing... speaker at a conference or member of a board. Unable to find any references about him. Bgwhite (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When I performed both a Google and Yahoo! search, all I found was this Wikipedia biography. Clearly, this physician isn't notable under Wikipedia article guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?. The College of General Practitioners of Sri Lanka may pass WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Very good point. There are a few references that have him in passing that he is a member, but I'm unable find any references that he held any leadership position. The college doesn't appear to have an active web site. Some places have an address to http://www.cgp.lk, but I'm unable to load it. Bgwhite (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep?. The key points made refer to the fact that no web based references are available. Presidency of the College is mentioned in several Sri Lankan Newspapers but these are not online. The Presidency of the college for two terms Suggest Notability. What is debated appears to be verifiability on the web. I am new to wikipedia and would appreciate guidance on how non internet references may be made acceptable. Liannalianna (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Liannalianna (talk)[reply]

~~Keep?~~. The development of technology at low cost and publishing such details in scientific publications by itself may not appear to be significant to those living outside Sri Lanka. However notability in this instance does not stem from the impact factor of the journals but the fact that it has happened in a developing country with limited resources. Liannalianna (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient non-trivial coverage available to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Also see WP:NRVE, which states, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." — Satori Son 02:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage in third party sources. Fails WP:BIO. The Undead Never Die (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Satori Son. --Noleander (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. And what is up with members that have access to print sources not taking the time to source the article with them? Print sources ARE allowed. Joe Chill (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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