< 9 December	11 December >

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 redirected to Supernumerary body part. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supernumerary ear[edit]

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

non-notable Perfection (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as it exists on Transwiki, and is no longer needed here on Wikipedia. Doing ((db-transwiki)) - so tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Supernumerary body part. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like somebody already did. AFD notice is gone from article though. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. The article was deleted for unrelated reasons (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novell Forge Password Management Servlets) some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Password Management Servlets[edit]

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

Password Management Servlets

REDIRECT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novell Forge Password Management Servlets

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator in favour of speedy deletion (non-admin closure). JamesBWatson (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jareed brown[edit]

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

Not notable, not accurate, not encyclopedic. ɳoɍɑfʈ^Talk! 14:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as advertising. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aayush Phumbhra[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. There is coverage of the company, yes, but not of the individual. Ironholds (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - biospam, possibly autobiospam (see creator's username!) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ff m 16:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire[edit]

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

No secondary sources beyond one trivial mention. Seems to fail WP:WEB, WP:GNG as a rather deep dig on Google, Google News, etc. turned up nearly nothing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article creator, but the comic has stopped being good since. However, it was long hosted on Keenspot, an invitation-only website with plenty of oversight. According to own judgement and to my knowledge of our standards on webcomics, Keenspot meets WP:WEB through the criteria that online content must "be distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators." --Kiz o r 20:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't make it notable if there're no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? WP:WEB says that "web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria. (...) The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators." Note that sources are another criteria. That specifically makes it notable. Let's drop notability, it doesn't belong here and the atmosphere at AfD is a lot more plesant when it's not around. --Kiz o r 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable, and it is referenced just by the same page :P --MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 20:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The Dominic Deegan series is also published in print as well as web, which meets the web requirements. Keenspot is both an online and print publisher and they do not own the comics they publish, making them independent of the creators of the comics. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that if I dump something on Keenspot, it'll automatically be notable for a Wikipedia article, even if no reliable source ever writes about my work? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's a "no" answer to my second message on the 3rd. Moving on. The level of disdain for Keenspot in your last message suggest that we're not on the same page. Keenspot is the Big Leagues, Prime Time, Your Name In Lights. (It's not, however, Big Rock Candy Mountain, and drawbacks have cost it its claim to being the whole enchilada.) Specifically, no artist just puts their work on Keenspot, and nobody "dumps" anything on Keenspot. The host is quite exclusive, and entry is by invitation only. You might be confusing it with Keenspace, an open host which is run by the same company. --Kiz o r 12:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kizor is quite correct. Keenspace, now known as ComicGenesis, is Keenspot's free comic hosting site. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, I found this review! Unless I completely misremember my dealings with our webcomics coverage, Comixtalk has an editorial staff and paid contributors, and is considered reliable. I'm going to come out in favor of Keep. --Kiz o r 15:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article does not meet standards of the general notability guideline WP:GNG. Starblueheather (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it does not meet WP:WEB either. Starblueheather (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article seems to meet the criteria at WP:WEB by passing (3) independent distribution. And just on a common sense level it seems to be suitably notable within its own field. Some more third party sources would definitely improve the article though as it seems to come close to original research at times. No reason to delete though. Mah favourite (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Petepetepetepete (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG states that a topic is (presumed to) merit an article if it meets its own criteria or those of an applicable subject-specific notability rule. This is a Very Good Thing: even if us Wikipedians weren't much better at making articles than making rules, I can't see how we could create an arbitrary cut-off point (which is what N is, whether one thinks it's a good thing or not) that worked for all subjects everywhere. Here the applicable one is WP:WEB, and how Dominic Deegan meets it has been discussed above. It did leave Keenspot, but stayed there for a long while in the heyday of both, and more importantly notability is not temporary - the battles over what meets such a subjective criteria, the need to rank and classify all types of references, and large swatches of the encyclopedia being made unmaintainable by the knowledge that they'd be deleted once their sources "timed out" would make N completely unusable. --Kiz o r 15:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an avid reader of webcomics for many years, I can say with certainty that Keenspot unfortunately does not meet the standard of a "medium which is both respected and independent of the creators." It is much closer to the "trivial distribution" end of the spectrum. This is the widely accepted view on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the huge list of red links at the Keenspot article, many of which lead to deleted articles on Keenspot hosted comics such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy in Love (comic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Mode, etc. Starblueheather (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At last, we're talking! :) As a similar avid reader of webcomics for many years, I say the opposite with certainty. Odd. Why do you think it isn't? Being invited to join Keenspot has generally been a cause for celebration, it's a big high-profile site, and it's certainly independent of Dominic Deegan's author. "Trivial distribution" is far, far away from Keenspot: WP:WEB uses Newgrounds, Keenspace and other sites with no entry barriers whatsoever and thousands upon thousands of half-done, one-afternoon works as examples of "trivial distribution."
Your statement about the redlinks is more troubling, so I went through the lot and discovered that the situation isn't nearly as bad as that. Of the 30 redlinks to currently active Keenspot comics, 18 lead to articles that have never been started. This is not evidence of the view on Wikipedia. It might be evidence that the readership of those comics is sane enough to keep away from our project, or mindful of our reputation on webcomics. One article was deleted as a copyright violation. Six were PRODded or just deleted outright, and frankly I'm not comfortable with that. We don't have a track record of reason and accuracy with either process, and their users are other drive-by editors from outside the field. There was at least a case to be made, so the fact that they were not contested is more indicative of a lack of manpower, willingness or wiki know-how to contest a prod, never mind an admin's summary deletion. Plus they only indicate one person's opinion. Only five of the thirty were AfD'd with the decision to delete. Of these, in one it was said and not contested that Keenspot does not confer notability. In two it was contested and the articles were deleted for other reasons, in one (God Mode, which you linked) it was found that prong #3 of WP:WEB didn't apply since it requires independence and the author was an employee, and one didn't mention Keenspot. (It was only mentioned in passing in the article. Admin powers are fun!) These proportions are much the same across the board. Of the fifteen comics to leave Keenspot (counting Dominic Deegan), twelve have articles, two have never had articles, and one was PRODded.
In total, 68 Keenspot comics have articles, and 47 have never had articles. 25 have lost them. 15 of these were prods or summary deletions (which, again, trouble me - one had a rationale of "."), and one became a Keenspot comic later on. Of the 10 that were AfD'd with a deletion result, five are mentioned above. One was a flash cartoon instead of a webcomic, and it was found that Keenspot has "some professional flair" with webcomics but not in this other field. One became a member of Keenspot later on. The other three were nominations of comics that are sporadic or on hiatus, and each of them was highly low-profile, barely enough to avoid a relisting (if they had that in 2007. Did they?). This last argument is a bit weak, I know. Still, it seems clear that the redlinks are not proof of a collective view, much less a widely-accepted one. Whew!
Support for Keenspot is definitely there but more difficult to prove, what with the articles still being there. :P Cyberskull, can you chip in if you see this since you're more experienced than me? You gave links, Heather, so there's at least the EGS AfD... but I do note that this high-profile AfD, admin BradBeattie states "there's an established precedent amongst the WP:COMIC crowd that being hosted Keenspot is sufficient notability." In your link for God Mode, Nifboy states "Curiously, back when WP:WEB was being (re)written (back before webcomics dropped off the page), its "independent distributor" clause was there more or less for the express purpose of keeping Keenspot strips." --Kiz o r 21:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through your lengthy comments several times and cannot disagree with you strongly enough. If there were a case for the notability of this comic strip then you could make that case far more succinctly (and with far fewer derogatory remarks directed at your fellow editors). My case is simple, and you have confirmed it: Wikipedia articles on Keenspot published comics are deleted frequently. Being published on Keenspot is not a free pass to a Wikipedia article. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not tell me what my motives are, especially that I'm being deceptive or have hidden aims. I've been getting that on another wiki this week and it's tiresome. I have made a case for the notability of this comic strip, I have done nothing else. I'm about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the crotch. You said that the redlinks proved something, so I replied with the amount of statistical investigation and analysis that is necessary to make any sense of the redlinks. But could you point out what these degoratory remarks are, so that I can see if there are things to avoid saying from now on? --Kiz o r 02:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no comments about your motives. Your derogatory remarks about other editors have included calling editors you disagree with "drive-by editors from outside the field," questioning those editors ability to reason and their sanity, etc. I don't think it's necessary to disparage other contributors when we're here to talk about encyclopedia content (nor is it necessary to talk about hitting people in the crotch with sledgehammers while we discuss encyclopedia sourcing standards). Since we can all agree that Wikipedia articles on Keenspot published comics are deleted quite frequently, then hopefully we can move on and do as Novil Ariandis suggests: Write a well-sourced encyclopedia. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge the little bit of sourced information with current publisher ZeStuff. This article is far too long for what little to no reliable secondary sources it has. What little bit is sourced can easily be merged elsewhere if desired. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being hosted on Keenspot does not establish notability since it shouldn't be treated as an independent publisher and has lost much of his status in recent years. However, the readership of Dominic Deegan is massive and I think it should therefore be possible to come up with some reliable sources for it. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have you here. A couple of things about Keenspot: First, it has been having a tailwind, but is it really that bad? My impression was that some of the change is from Keenspot moving back, but a lot of it is everyone else moving forward. That would still leave Keenspot a comfortable distance within the third criterion of WP:WEB. In fact, that criterion's hard to un-qualify for. Two, I don't get why Keenspot shouldn't fit the definition of independent publisher when the clause involved was - per Nifboy above - more or less specifically tailored for it. Fortunately, Keenspot has a twofold claim to publishing Dominic Deegan through Keenswag. Third, what's happened to Keenspot since is pretty much irrelevant to Dominic Deegan anyway: their association was in the heyday of both and notability is not temporary since if we change that rule, this place will promptly tear itself apart. :)
Reliable sources are the pressing matter. We have this one. Comixtalk (formerly Comixpedia) is considered an online magazine. We also have this article, and if can establish the site's relationship to its newspaper, we'll most likely squeak past the requirements. It won't be pretty but it'll work. More is always better, though, so I'll go bug the wikiproject sometime after I wake up. --Kiz o r 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mah favourite MKFI (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to New York Mets minor league players. Wizardman 05:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Carson (baseball player)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor leaguer. Wizardman 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re-direct to New York Mets minor league players and rename as Robert Carson (baseball) per naming conventions. -Spanneraol (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to New York Mets minor league players and rename. He's only reached Class-A and the article doesn't cite refs making him not notable per WP:WPBB/N but he is still deserving of the re-direct because he seems to be somewhat of a prospect. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article, thinking the full MLB.com profile is sufficient for notability. But a redirect per above may make more sense. --Pink Bull 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct per above. Alex (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon (bootloader)[edit]

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

Lack of notability Cman (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I find the software useful, the sources just aren't there. ff m 16:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 16:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Michael Vick Project[edit]

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

non notable possible future TV series WuhWuzDat 19:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep - Looks like it's releasing in the next month and a half, which means filming has probably already completed. If BET has put it on the schedule, I think it meets the requirements for notability, at least per WP:NFF (which I admit relates to movies, not TV, but the guidelines seem reasonable for anything that isn't just paid public access shows). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per SR. In the absence of a specific notability guideline, WP:NFF seems to be a good standard to go by. Media coverage seems significant. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 19:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments, with an explicit invitation to re-nominate immediately if the show falls off of BET's schedule or the advertised airdate passes without any update to the sources. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News sources verify the show's existence and notability. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I clicked Google news search at the top of the AFD, and its got coverage. Dream Focus 06:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was copyright violation (non-admin closure) 2 says you, says two 18:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beywatch[edit]

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

The article makes no assertion of notability, and reads like a blatant advertisement for the consortium. Contested prod. Lithorien (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Zahariad (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)The text has been edited and modified to address the problem of Efficient Building Energy.[reply]
Speedy Delete Although the page is down for some reason, this article is largely a copyvio of portions of this, available through Google's cache. 2 says you, says two 20:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this in August for exceedingly weak sourcing. Nothing has changed. Abductive (reasoning) 20:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, advertisement, copyvio. Andrea105 (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Zahariad (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)This text represents the opinion of a consortium of companies (including Telefonica, EDF, Fagor, Gorenje, Synelixis, ...) This is a new text, edited to be general, and avoid any avdertisments, but remain at the facts. The only reference to BeyWatch project is the title and the last link (which links to additional info for the interested parties). Additional link to www.paradiso-fp7.eu can be added, though the text there comes from the same authors. Donating the content could be also an option.With respect to Notability energy efficiency and the ways to meet it is according to my view quite notable...[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Notability. Efficient energy use is probably a notable topic, but that doesn't mean a company or group of companies doing it are notable because of that. Notability depends on independent news coverage, and several other things listed on the page i linked to. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Further merger discussions can take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesusland map[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable blog meme from shortly after the 2004 Presidential election. Doesn't seem to have any lasting significance, and I can find no evidence that it was ever covered in any reliable sources. The references section is terrible — mostly consisting of blogs, forums, and other such sites. There is a citation to a MSNBC exit poll, and another to a NY Times article, but neither of these sources even contain the term "Jesusland", nor do they mention the map. In fact, a large portion of this article (the "Analysis" section) constitutes original research. *** Crotalus *** 18:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reliable source in the references section that really discussed the topic is this Toronto Star blog entry, but it makes no mention of a map or "Jesusland". This blog meme doesn't seem to have any coverage in reliable sources that would be necessary to meet our verifiability policy.--Chaser (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Changing to keep. Plenty of sources in the first AFD. This article could not be written any worse to establish the map's notability.--Chaser (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Received very wide circulation in late 2004, and has had a certain lasting influence in discussions of the alleged blue/red divide. Just from searching nytimes.com right now, I turned up http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/maps-fighting-disease-and-skewing-borders/ , http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/magazine/19wwln_lede.html?_r=1 , http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12NEO.html , etc. etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Did the proposer even look at the first AFD discussions? AnonMoos (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's possible. I inadvertently missed it.--Chaser (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly worth discussing somewhere. It is covered in a number of sources, like this book of maps released in 2009, this recent book of cultural criticism, this book, and this one, among others. (Just search for "map of Jesusland" at Google Books.) I don't know for sure if there's enough meat for an individual page, but we should say something about the Jesusland map somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 20:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources meet WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Red states and blue states as a subsection. While this is certainly notable enough to merit mention in that context, it really, truly isn't notable enough to genuinely need its own article. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by the above. I agree that, while it has notability, it doesn't quite have enough for its own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of sources provided above. The subject is too trivial to deserve a whole section at Red states and blue states, but reasonable for a short independent article. EALacey (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A subsection of a parent topic's article demands a higher claim of notability than an independent article does? That's a new one. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "trivial", I meant "frivolous" rather than "non-notable" in the Wikipedia sense. It's certainly "notable" in the sense of having independent sources, but it's not a major aspect of red states and blue states. EALacey (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable and verifiable from available sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed above. Everything counts (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but definitely NOT A KEEP - There's enough here to merge nicely, but most of those sources (for example, check the NYT reference) don't ever mention the "jesusland map", which is an internet meme. The only reason there are sources is that they're referring to the purple map, not to some internet meme. This article is about the internet meme, and that meme isn't notable. The info in the article however is ripe for a merge, as talked about above. Shadowjams (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with a merge, but just FYI, a lot of book sources (which don't seem to be used in the article) do specifically discuss the Jesusland map. Zagalejo^^^ 01:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AnonMoos. This can stand on its own without a merge. I think this could generate enough hits specifically for "Jesusland" whereas a merge would require scrolling through an article that may not necessarily be of interest. freshacconci talktalk 16:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough reliable sources discuss the Jesusland map (under that name, too), and the article is big enough to stand alone. -- Avenue (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a large amount of reliable, third-party information about this topic that even uses the same name as this article and many search engines lead to this page. There's also no need for a merge, the article is long enough to stand on its own. TimeClock871 (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 17:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie James (motorcyclist)[edit]

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

Fails to meet the criteria Wikipedia:Notability (people). There are a large number of notices of the death of Eddie James on motorcycling blogs and forums, but unless these media count toward notability, the threshold for inclusion is not met. WP:NOTMEMORIAL

There are two articles in the general media with coverage of Eddie James: A long obituary (558 words) in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and a portion (about 310 words out of 1100) of an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune from 2006:

Going the distance, year after year ; Iron Butt Association members take pride in criss-crossing the world on motorcycle. A 7,000-mile rally starts Tuesday. [METRO Edition], Heron Marquez Estrada, Staff Writer, Star Tribune (Minneapolis, Minn.), 2006-08-07, p. 1.B. Found online via ProQuest archive with local public library access.

The subject was active in various motorcycling organizations, and an employee of the American Motorcyclist Association (Director of Road Riding), and James is briefly mentioned in one article in the AMA's magazine, American Motorcyclist, and a few events calendar entries. It is misleading to say he "helped pioneer long-distance riding"-- that activity has existed since the first motorcycle. James actually was an organizer of a non-notable riding club (TeamStrange Airheads) and the founder of the Butt Lite, a non-notable spinoff of the Iron Butt Rally.

This article should be moved into user space for the convenience of the primary author in case in the future Eddie James meets notability criteria, such as being inducted in the AMA Hall of Fame. --Dbratland (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Dbratland (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Dbratland (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As someone involved in the community James was in (hi Lisa!), ultimately Wikipedia is not a place for memorials. James isn't entirely non-notable, but ultimately he doesn't pass WP:BIO. Note that as an admin, I've offered to userify this article, and I'll still do that after the AFD. tedder (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO guidelines. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Article reads like a memorial rather than a biography RadioFan (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Stretch[edit]

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

Keep The credibility of the sources is not a properly addressed issue here. Stretch is both the CEO of a registered corp. and is funded and supported by a 501c3 non-profit corp, both in Virginia. As far as being a "nonnotable author" is concerned, Stretch's book has sold well over 1,000 copies and reached number 5 on the Amazon bestseller list in its category. To call him nonnotable is a, well, stretch. I put hours into writing this article because plenty of people want to know about this young artist, and plenty of people, thousands, have been impacted by his work in writing and the work his book has done for the Virginia Prison System. I will work on finding additional credible sources to add to the list. Thanks for your concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchBauserman (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all the citations, he's essentially the nonnotable author of a selfpublished (Booksurge) book. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish ntoability. None of the sources in the article are reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTHOR --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery's Impact on African English[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Slavery's Impact on African English

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

POV WP:SYNTH essay at its worst. Even includes the dreaded Conclusion section. Drdisque (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, school essay, see WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, it has references and is partly on-topic, we are supposed to fix this kind of thing instead of deleting it. Polarpanda (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but (as I just noted below) the very topic is an absurdity. Slavery can't have "affected" African English when there was no pre-existing African English for it to affect. Besides that, fixing (by removing and fixing a few problem sentences here and there) is one thing. Something that requires a fundamental rewrite is something else. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've struck my vote, on re-reading it does look like OR. Polarpanda (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the problems already mentioned, it's full of absurdities right from the beginning. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There might be some merit to the subject as far as American English vocabulary with African roots, and maybe we have one. I disagree with the idea that there was no pre-existing African English for slavery to affect, since it's not as if all African slaves came to America at the same time. Slave importing went on for the entire 18th century and the early 19th. This, however, is someone's term paper. The approach to an encyclopedia has to be different than a college essay, since the audience for the essay is one's professor, not the average reader. It takes a while to find examples. I was expecting examples of imported words, and not stereotypes about people who don't pronounce the "th" sound. Still, there are all sorts of problems with the essay, especially sentences like "Pronouncing the, this, and that as de, dis, and dat is another linguistic trait that is still spoken in the south today, by not only the African community but by educated white people as well." The stereotype of "Dat's right boss" is what comes to mind. Mandsford (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize this is a digression now, but regardless of the century in which a particular African was imported as a slave, before being imported as a slave his language was generally whatever African language he grew up speaking. Even the article emphasizes this, undermining its own premise that there was a pre-existing African English on which slavery could have an impact. As for coverage of the actual topic in Wikipedia, we have African American Vernacular English, which delves into topics like loan words borrowed from African languages. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low quality essay, DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given above, but esp. given the title and the linguistic and historical misconceptions behind it. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a bad school paper. Marks off for bad research: non-rhotic speech is in general retreat in the southern USA and everywhere else, except for AAVE. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, etc ukexpat (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Additional discussions for merging can be discussed locally on the articles' talk pages. MuZemike 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mons Venus[edit]

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

This strip club is not notable. It has lot of local news hits for land use lawsuits and the owner is a local loudmouth. These things always true for strip clubs so it does not make this one notable. There was sentence in the article that said one of the lawsuits made it to the Supreme Court of the United States. The reference for this was an article pointing to a land use lawsuit in a local district court. This discrepancy between what the article said and what the reference said was so huge I tried to find valid sources showing this strip club is more important than any other in Tampa. It do have lots of news hits saying the owner is a loudmouth that sue the city a lot but that is run-of-the-mill for Tampa strip clubs. In this case, even a lot of local coverage does not make for an encyclopedic topic. Miami33139 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Miami33139 (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Looking through the gNews archives to January, 2001 [1], a couple of things struck me. Now, this may be in response to a couple of incidents, but if you read through the synopses of the archived articles (which, sadly, are pay articles) the club itself appears to be referred to as "notorious" (geo location unknown), "high profile" (St. Petersburg, FL), "popular" (Boston), "infamous" (New York), etc., and there appear to be mentions about the club from LA, Texas, and other places. Wile the coverage may have been driven by events in some cases (e.g. Dallas Stars player's arrests), the coverage seems to reference the club in general. National coverage + established news media citing the club's notability=general notability. Vulture19 (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with you if even one of the national stories was about the strip club rather than the strip club just being mentioned as the location. Drugs, whores and celebrities behaving badly are normal in the vicinity of a strip club so you expect a common intersection of news reports that mention the place in the background. Miami33139 (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per Vulture19 and reference that the subject is listed as top ten in the world from a reputable and notable third-party source. Seems to conform to WP:N--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 21:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If delete convert it into a dab page. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thought was to say keep, as there are reliable sources saying it is notable. But when I clicked on Joe Redner, the owner, I found that article was covering the notability of the strip club in more detail. We really only need to have the one article. At the moment we have two articles saying the same thing. As Joe Redner is the more developed, and the strip club is notable because of Joe Redner, my suggestion is merge to Joe Redner. SilkTork *^YES! 01:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MuZemike 21:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Gordon[edit]

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

I beleive copious precedent has shown that parliamentary candidates are not notable for that reason alone. Subject has no other claim to other than local notability. Web results are limited to Liberal Democrats sites and blogs. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per copious precedent. --Mais oui! (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - feel free to nominate both Osama Saeed and Anas Sarwar - see Glasgow Central (UK Parliament constituency) - on exactly the same grounds. --Mais oui! (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anas Sarwar has already been nominated for deletion and was closed as keep. Feel free to renominate, but there were reasons for making him an exception. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Glasgow North. There are some circumstances when it's worth having an article on a PPC, but not one that looks like a reprint of the candidate's own website. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris Neville-Smith. Article is sourced entirely from the subjects own website, and a blog. It is full of weasel words, and far from neutral. Martin451 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Baldwin Brothers[edit]

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

band of questionable notability WuhWuzDat 15:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep allmusic.com entry [2], mirrored on mtv.com, article in regional paper [3]. Album produced by notable producer (Trumfio), with notable guest artist collobaration. This info was gleaned through a relatively quick search.Vulture19 (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following WP:BEFORE may well have thrown up these which would make the band's notability not at all questionable: Allmusic bio, mixmatters article, CMJ New Music Monthly, Daily Eastern News, PopMatters (see #3), Allmusic review, Allmusic review.--Michig (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Michig. Joe Chill (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seem notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'm not sure they meet any factor for WP:BAND, but based on sources found and their songs used in video games, I'd let it slide. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Michig. Agree about wp:before. Suggest that the nom agrees to it being kept, so we don't have more editors wasting time on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. It's snowing. Mgm|^(talk) 13:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AVR 661[edit]

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

steaming pile of non encyclopedic speculation WuhWuzDat 15:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All places and structures in the Registry are notable. The details arfe for editing. In this case, the source is not completely sure just what it corresponds to, and the article properly reflects that. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not particularly satisfying because the underlying NRHP application is not yet on line, but that will come. A fair number of NRHP stubs are very positive, but wrong. This one honestly speculates and is right (for evidence see the ref I just added). If we delete this, we need to delete a lot of NRHP stubs and that would slow the project a lot.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an NRHP entry, this will be a notable "structure", even if the precise nature is not currently known. Unfortuantely, Google Earth doesn't help on this one, as the structure is too small to be found (and the fact that there is a lot of construction work in the area doesn't help!). I think the article needs tidying up, and awaiting further information being available. Perhaps it might be worth asking someone in Category:Wikipedians in Chicago if one of them could pop over and have a look (a message on Category talk:Wikipedians in Chicago perhaps?) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The NRHP listing means that the documentation is out there to establish notability for this site and to clean up the article eventually. Edits since the AfD nomination appear to fix the most serious problems. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried looking for information on this a while ago in Chicago newspaper archives and such, but couldn't find much, beyond its inclusion in lists. However, the NRHP application should contain enough information to write a decent-sized article. Hopefully, that will be available online soon (or maybe someone can request it.) Nominating something for inclusion on the NRHP takes a lot of time and effort, so even if there does not appear to be much information online, some historian out there as done a good deal of research on each specific listing. Zagalejo^^^ 21:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago#AVR 661 TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess i started and/or developed the article. I am amused by User:Wuhwuzdat's wording of nomination, but as others have said here, like other NRHP-listed places or objects, the AVR 661 is wikipedia-notable for two reasons: a) it was deemed significant/notable enough for National Register listing by local, state, and Federal officials; b) there is extensive documentation available for it. In this case I believe i looked for State of Illinois on-line documentation but did not find any. To develop the article, someone just needs to request a free copy of the NRHP documentation from the Federal levell, by sending an email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. It could be appropriate to tag the article as needing development (although it is already classified as a stub which implicitly calls for expansion), but there's no need to delete it! doncram (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability and article quality are independent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Sales Corporation[edit]

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

non notable company. only 3rd party reference provided is a mention of possible legal problems for companies owner. WuhWuzDat 15:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A search returns only business directory links. None of those are reliable sources. There's no coverage and no notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

88 Fingers Louie[edit]

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

non notable band WuhWuzDat 15:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They've toured internationally, are well known in the punk community, were in regular rotation on XM Radio's Fungus 53, and have a decent amount of coverage in news and books (which is saying something, for a punk band). Crappy article, but no shortage of notability here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above sources, and satisfies WP:BAND #6. I may like Rise Against, but there's no conflict of interest here. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the books search above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the books searches - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MuZemike 21:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WW1 Watches[edit]

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

Non notable subject, has a reference, but no inline citations, does nothing but spur interest in the listed link to a company that sales vintage watches. Click23 (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a proper encyclopedia article. Seems to be an essay copied and pasted here. Wristwatch is the article which covers this notable topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. "Wristwatch" redirects to "Watch." I think it really should have its own article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs work. This aspect of the history of the watch can be a sufficient subject of its own. There is apparently one published article, cited there. Perhaps the best approach might be to split out wristwatch from the article of watches. DGG ( talk ) 14:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Looks like a new user who isn't familiar with Wikipedia style of writing. To that person, I can only say that (1) We can help you in making this have an encyclopedic tone and (2) The number one rule of writing is that you have to tell others where you got the information. I'm sure that the author probably has a number of publications, whether they're catalogs, books, or magazines (TIMEpiece Magazine or whatever). Drop an e-mail to me or to DGG. Mandsford (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:UGLY. AfD is not cleanup and shouldn't be. I don't know enough about the subject to be sure, but it seems notable and the article's current state shouldn't mark it for deletion. Annalise (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would probably work better, after cleanup, as an article about the wristwatch in general. The article is about more than wristwatches made in World War One, although (I didn't know this), the war was a key event in the trend from carrying a pocket watch to wearing a wristwatch, for reasons discussed at the close of the page. Currently, wristwatch redirects to a section of Watch (Watch#1920-1950 Wristwatches) which reads, in its entirety, "At the beginning of the century wristwatches were mostly worn by women. In 1904, Brazilian aviator Alberto Santos Dumont asked his friend Louis Cartier to come up with an alternative that would allow him to keep both hands on the controls while timing his performances during flight. Cartier and his master watchmaker, Edmond Jaeger soon came up with the first prototype for a man's wristwatch called the Santos wristwatch. The Santos first went on sale in 1911, the date of Cartier's first production of wristwatches. During the First World War soldiers needed access to their watches while their hands were full. They were given wristwatches, called 'trench watches', which were made with pocketwatch movements, so they were large and bulky and had the crown at the 12 o'clock position like pocketwatches. After the war pocketwatches went out of fashion and by 1930 the ratio of wrist- to pocketwatches was 50 to 1. The first successful self-winding system was invented by John Harwood in 1923." This article expands upon that information. Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article would need a total re-write to be encyclopedic and it's unclear whether the topic is notable. Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, rename to "Wristwatch" and rewrite? Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In my interpretation of the discussion, it looks like the lone argument for retention was refuted. MuZemike 20:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of portable platforms[edit]

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

There is no clear definition for "portable platform". Also, creating Comparison_of_portable_software is not feasible. Look at List_of_portable_software and notice that there is an insane amount of software that would qualify for comparison. Such a huge comparison table would violate WP:NOTCATALOG and it can be handled better by organizing Category:Portable software in subcategories. Enric Naval (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A clear case of the "you should know what I'm talking about" school of writing. Nah, I admit it, I'm dumb as hell and I have no idea. The concept of an encyclopedia is that people consult it if they want to know more about the subject. I suggest that this be changed to an article called portable platform and the list can be part of that article. Mandsford (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no means of justifiing the inclusion or exclusion of any software program from this comparison, as there's no definition of what a "portable platform" actually is. (See the section I created on just this issue on the talk page) Nuwewsco (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Portable application creators. I agree a good definition of portable platform probably does not exit... --SF007 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISTM that Comparison of portable platforms is more of a list of portable suites - maybe it should be renamed to "Comparison of portable compilations" or similar; there's no real crossover with Portable application creators Nuwewsco (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This table have one extra column titled "Free" but does not define "Free" which could mean price, or source license, or what. The definition problem about what "portable platform" even refers to exists as well. Is it a VM? Is it a live OS? Is it a suite of apps for existing OS? WHAT? Miami33139 (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to ~~Portable platform~~ Portable application launcher per Mandsford. Although the definition given rivals Moliere's virtus dormitiva in absurdity, the de facto definition drawn from the examples is straightforward - a portable application whose purpose is to allow other applications to run from a removable volume without administrative privilege or the intervention of a user with administrative privilege. It is not a virtual machine nor a Live OS, though Ceedo e.g. may be thunking OS calls, or maybe wrapping them. As Nuwewsco points out, it is not a portable application creator, and though it is a portable application it is unique among portable applications in that it mediates interactions between (portable) application and operating system. Ceedo, PortableApps.com, and U3 appear to discharge this function in three very different ways, which merits elaboration and comparison for the bazillion (OK, I made that number up) owners of flash memory devices who run applications from them. This is a duck, folks, which PortableApps.com and U3 users will immediately recognize. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the content is of any use, it should be moved to List of portable software under a new section "Portable application suites". Creating a "portable platform" article would be a bad idea, and immediatly fail WP:RS, among others, for reasons already listed on the Talk:Comparison of portable platforms page Cupids wings (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to Portable application launcher, then. A list is not appropriate; checkboxes are not sufficient for an informed comparison, and no other article explores the different methods of achieving this same end. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current article isn't a comparison - as noted by another user above, the only information on the current page is the name of the program and who published it. All of the softwre suites listed are more than just launchers - they're bundles of portable software, so "Portable application launcher" or even Comparison of application launchers doesn't cover it. List of portable software would be more appropriate. Cupids wings (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most powerful person in the world[edit]

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

It's basically an article saying Barack Obama is the most powerful person in the world, mostly derived from the Forbes list and some random statements. This is not an official title and it's not based on any solid criteria. Therefore this article hardly has any encyclopedic value. What little information there is can easily be mentioned in the Obama article (if it isn't already). Atlan (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Since this basically tells that Obama is the most powerful person in the world, based on Forbes, then, I believe this should be deleted and added into any of the countless Obama-related articles that seem to be very very loose.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 13:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Perhaps the article creator believes "Most powerful person in the world" is an established term in political science or a noteworthy award of some sort. It's not. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There should not be an article which presents a single fact. Rather mention in President of the United States. (If it was The most interesting man in the world that would be another story.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, we get it, Forbes Magazine says that it's Barack Obama. That's worth one sentence in his article. Mandsford (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, the most powerful person in the world is probably the President of the United States–who happens to be Obama at the moment. A year ago it would have been George W. Bush. In other words, it is the office, not the person. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Off Topic)I'm inclined to agree with that, as Barak Obama was much less powerful as a US senator. Nevertheless, Forbes states Obama as the most powerful. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Topic already covered at Forbes Magazine's List of The World's Most Powerful People TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A blatant duplication of a single "fact" from the Forbes list. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherent POV, dubious entry all around. Hairhorn (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MuZemike 20:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Izzat Yousef Al-Maqrif[edit]

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

I speedy deleted this a few days ago as A7. It has now been recreated, though with an external reference to an Amnesty press release. That release, however, isn't about him specifically, though he is mentioned. All the other links to him are mentions in the general articles about disappeared people, or campaign sites/facebook pages etc. That he existed and disappeared isn't in doubt, but sadly he isn't notable, just one of far too many. Ged UK 11:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched Google using a transliteration of his name (عزت يوسف المقريف, thanks to Google Translate) (findsources added above) - but even the 13 Google News hits (0 for Scholar or Book) that generated didn't have significant coverage - all the mentions (which appear to be based on 3 or 4 different press releases from what I can see) are minor (basically "Al-Maqrif was taken" with not much else). Sadly, I can find no evidence that he is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Incidently, if there is another way to transliterate his name, I'd be grateful if someone could add it here, so we could do further searches. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The amnest International article is sufficient documentation by itself. The article mentions others, so they can presumably be found as well. DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With respect, DGG, I don't think that the AI article represents the "significant coverage" expected under the notability guidelines: Jaballah Matar and Izzat Youssef al-Maqrif, two prominent opposition activists, disappeared in Cairo in March 1990. For well over a decade, their whereabouts have remained unknown. Their families have received unconfirmed reports, suggesting that they were both handed over to the Libyan authorities immediately following their reported arrests by officers from the State Security Investigations in Cairo, and that they were detained without charge or trial in Abu Salim Prison in Tripoli. I'll admit this is more coverage than any of the sources that I found, which all had a single sentence saying that Al-Maqrif had disappeared/been taken - but it still does not appear to meet the coverage that WP:BIO indicates as required: If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you have quoted the first paragraph of a nine-paragraph article as if it were the entire article, and then claimed the article is unsubstantial. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if that is the impression that I've given - for clarity, the section I quoted is indeed one paragraph out of the entire article - but it is the only bit of the article that is about Izzat Yousef Al-Maqrif - and personally I do not feel that it meets the 'substantial' requirements - YMMV. The rest of the article is not about him - unless I'm a lot thicker than I am usually (OK, that is a distinct possibility, I know!), in which case I am quite happy to be corrected! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 sentences surely does not equal substantial. The article is about someone else. The Amnesty article confirms their existance, not their notability. Ged UK 16:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Amnesty's listings typically result in nontrivial press coverage, and may well themselves satisfy notability guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, surely at least some of that press coverage would be available online? Amnesty is a Western organisation, with press coverage subtstantially shown in England and the US (as well as in other European countries) - all of which would generally be available online, but a Google News search didn't show any. If Amnesty was an organisation in a developing-world country, I would agree that (off-line) coverage would possibly exists - but it is not, it is a large developed-world organisation which is very efficient in getting coverage in the likes of the The Times, the The Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. The article cites a reference from 08 December 2003 - the 'big' newspapers have archives going back at least that far. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with DGG. The article is sufficiently sourced for a keep now, and will likely only expand and improve in the future. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 22:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of the contents of the article have been rewritten or removed in accordance with WP:C, as they reproduced previously published sources (primarily [4]). I've instructed the contributor how to verify permission. While we might presume that the correspondent there would be happy to have his words reproduced (I'm sure I would be), our copyright policy doesn't allow us to use it unless it is properly licensed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Name was claimed to be OR, article has been renamed, so just the redirect with the bad name to remove Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative perception spectrum[edit]

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

This is a non-existant disorder or label. I searched in quotes for "Alternative perception spectrum" and brought up no reliable sources which even mentioned this proposed alternative name for schizophrenia so the article name is original research and original thought. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is a portmanteau that summarises some of the historical and recent links between autism and schizophrenia from the perspective of the campaign to abolish the label of schizophrenia. I am seeking advice from various people and sources such as the royal college of psychiatrists on this.

Darwinerasmus (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is reliable sources to demonstrated WP:N. I cannot find any.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion, as the nominator.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be an academic paper, truly unencyclopedic.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 13:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Unclear whether this is about a campaign to rename "schizophrenia" to something more politically correct, or about other persons' theories about the causes and treatment of a particular type of mental illness. As to the former, one of the sources in the article [5] indicates that there are a lot of proposals. It happens-- bipolar disorder is the current term for what we used to call "manic depression", for instance, and the psychiatric community seems to take on new names to call attention to new treatments. The difference is that I see no evidence that this term is going to be considered for taking on. Mandsford (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is OR: an option from a name pool is not notable for an article. Probably taking a look at the sources not even the controversy over the name of schizophrenia is notable to merit an article of its own.--Garrondo (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that i rework this article as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Darwinerasmus/social_construction_of_schizophrenia

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

and invite discussion comments on that. Darwinerasmus (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest discussing another article title on the main schizophrenia article talk page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this article has been moved and redirected. I still think that the redirect should be deleted. I am not sure what to do about the new article, some new content has been added but still problems of irrelevant or misused references, ugh.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Most of the reasons for retention here seem to be more explicit and outweigh the reasons for deletion here. MuZemike 20:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)

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

Per BIO1E. This IRA volunteer is only notable for one, mostly non-notable, event. As WP:N states, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This event was not significant. He was not involved in any other IRA actions, and was not notable in any other aspect of his life. The event is adequately covered at Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: significant coverage by both national Newspapers[6] [7][8] Books [9] [10] [11] and international news media such as the BBC. This article was also merged here, with O'Brien article being cited as notable.--Domer48_'fenian' 11:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, the event wasn't notable, and neither was the volunteer who carried it out. The previous merge discussion does not confirm O'Brien's notability. The extra sources you are providing support the event's notability, not O'Brien's. And even then I don't think they provide sufficient evidence to prove that the event deserves an article. If O'Brien had carried out multiple IRA actions, then yes he should have an article. See Gerry O'Callaghan, Eugene Kelly and Declan Arthurs for other volunteers only notable for one event. The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Declan Arthurs (2nd nomination) was to merge these three articles to Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade, which has still to be done. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notable enough to be in a number of books on the conflict. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Simply being mentioned in a book does not confer notability. He gets a passing mention in each of the book sources, and the event is also barely covered. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Domer in that there was a lot of news coverage on O'Brien at the time of the event, and the event itself also achieved much attention from the media. In my opinion, notability has been established, therefore the article should not be deleted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't honestly see how notability has been established. The event might pass in terms of nobability. (but I feel is covered sufficiently at Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions and List of terrorist incidents in London} The notability policy for biographies states: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The coverage is not significant. In each source, it's pretty much just his name that's mentioned. In others his name and where he was from. Tírghrá gives detail about his background, but playing for your local GAA team is not notable. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing mentions only, a clear BLP1E case. The event is what is notable if anything, and as established, that is more than adequately covered in other articles and doesn't warrant a standalone article. (although I note Aldwych bus bombing is a redlink which should probably be a redirect). Delete, and then redirect and salt Edward O'Brien (Aldwych bus bomber) as a valid search term and dab entry. MickMacNee (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Books which are citable.

The Troubles: Ireland's ordeal, 1966-1996, and the Search for Peace by Tim Pat Coogan
IRA Man: Talking with the Rebels‎ by Douglass McFerran
The Irish War: The Hidden Conflict Between the IRA and British Intelligence‎ by Tony Geraghty
Armed struggle: The History of the IRA‎ by Richard English
The Provisional IRA in England: The Bombing Campaign, 1973-1997‎ by Gary McGladdery
The Northern Ireland Peace Process, 1993-1996: a Chronology‎ by Paul Bew and Gordon Gillespie
The politics of Illusion: a Political History of the IRA‎ by Henry Patterson
IRA, The Bombs and The Bullets: a History of Deadly Ingenuity‎ by A. R. Oppenheimer
The World in Conflict: Contemporary Warfare Described and Analysed by ‎ John Laffin

Comment He hasn't, most sources state his name and nothing more. That isn't significant. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This story includes reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject, a condition of WP:N. There are also additional sources out there that I found with a very quick search, such as here, here and here. I agree that this article is bordering on WP:ONEEVENT, but when an article is on the borderline like that, I tend to ask myself this question: Is Wikipedia better off, or worse off, for having this article? In this case, I think it's better off. There is reason to believe that this article has room to grow and expand in the future (because there are other sources out there), and if someone wants to read about Edward O'Brien, I saw [[WP:IGNORE|why not? This is a comprehensive, paperless encyclopedia. As long as it's well-sourced and verifiable, what's the harm in having it? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 14:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that what the existence of this biography asserts is that non-notbale dead IRA members are notable, the harm it does to Wikipedia's neutral stance is, or should be, pretty obvious. If you think this is a borderline case of ONEEVENT, the correct course of action is, per that policy, a rename to Aldwych bus bombing and removal of extraneous content. While the presence of some sources doesn't make your argument a true case of WP:NOHARM, it comes pretty close. I personally cannot yet see what the new material is that you propose can be added to the article from these sources that it doesn't already contain. MickMacNee (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The fact that sources exist does not automatically mean a subject deserves an article. When you examine the sources provided, including the three you have mentioned, none establish his notability. They only mention his name as the bomber. The sources may support the creation of an article on the event, they do not support the keeping of this biographical article. Only a possible deletion review of 1996 West End Bus Bombing. I see no material from which the article could be expanded from either. All of the sources are very basic, and there is no evidence that he did anything else notable. This is not bordering on ONEEVENT, it's a clear example of it. As per that policy, "cover the event, not the person". Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: When you examine the sources provided, including the three mentioned, they do establish his notability.--Domer48_'fenian' 15:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is simply because you confuse passing mentions linked inextricably with the event, with significant coverage of the person himself. Not every dead IRA member is separately notable, yet understandably, there will be mentions of of them all out there in one place or another, for obvious reasons. If any of these sources hailed O'Brien's accidental death as a turning point in the Troubles (rather than just the third attack since the restart), or cite him as the tactical genius responsible for this new method of attack, then you might have a case. But no, it was a pretty unremarkable event in the grand scheme of The Troubles, he killed nobody but himself, and he did nothing of note in the rest of his life according to sources, hence, he is an open and shut BLP1E case, and the material is easily covered elsewhere in other articles. I really hope that we don't have to establish some sort of notability guideline just for IRA members for people to see sense in this area, but it is pretty clear O'Brien doesn't meet WP:PERPETRATOR or WP:MILPEOPLE. MickMacNee (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has reliable sources which establish notability and as stated by Hunter Kahn above more reliable sources are available with a quick google search, BigDunc 15:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fact that sources exist that provide more than incidental coverage does mean that the subject presumably is notable. Incidental coverage would be the mere inclusion in a series of deaths. If he was covered individually, with reference to what he did, he is notable. People are necessarily linked with events, or the people wouldn't be notable. Nobody is notable for the biographical details of their life. "unremarkable in the grand scheme of (whatever)" is a matter of opinion. If we need a more specific guideline, I have a simple one: every suicide bomber is notable. Then we could write the articles and stop the arguing--if onlys ome of them are, we'll argue each of them indefinitely, and it'sd a total waste of time and effort. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgetting the fact that "every suicide bomber is notable" (for their own biography), is not a proposal that would pass in a million years, and that BLP1E flatly contradicts you with regard to automatic articles for 1 event people, O'Brien wasn't even a suicide bomber. The sources only knew his name to be able to include it in passing, because once he screwed up the mission, the IRA had no reason not to release it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources show he is considered historically significant, and that passes BIO. I also suggest what I think would be a simpler way to decide these, and my experience is that eventually the community is tending to go to clear distinctions. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, by that rationale every paramilitary in the conflict would qualify for an article. More than that, most of the people who died in the Troubles would be eligable as well, just because their name's are mentioned in a few news sources and books? This is all that is mentioned of O'Brien in the sources - his name and in some cases where he is from. No source provided shows that he is historically significant, just that he died. That's it. So I'm struggling to understand your rationale. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 17:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources show that, shockingly, a bomb exploding on a bus was a significant event worthy of recording. If you want to argue anything different DGG, you are going top have to start coming up with some specific reasoning, because it is pretty easy to refute 'they do' arguments, by simply saying, 'they don't'. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O'Brien passes BIO, it is sourced with reliable sources, more reliable sources are available, now are you going to harrang every editor who doesn't agree with deletion, what about the ridiculous per nom below are you pair going to ask GD to expand. BigDunc 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:PERNOM: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom".". Secondly, who is haranguing who here? I point out the very reasonable point that 'keep, sourced' or 'passes BIO' is not very good argument in an Afd, which is all perfectly normal and expected, and you jump in with an allegation, but not an answer or expansion of your own. Now, just like HK, if you think these extra sources add anything to the article, then feel free to detail exactly what they add that is not already covered, and/or how that makes this person anymore notable. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also says Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. BigDunc 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the history of this article (which I should've earlier) & it's over 2-yrs old. I try to make it a point, not to seek deletion of articles over a year old. I mistakenly thought this article was created recently. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've already voted, but I did a quick Lexis Nexis search and found some additional sources that I think further demonstrate O'Brien's notability. (I've placed them in my userspace for now.) Some of these stories present Edward O'Brien in an interesting context. For example, how he showed little signs of political or social ideology, and that his involvement with the IRA reflect the types of people that group was seeking to recruit at this time. (If I'm reading these correctly; I've only had the chance to skim through them so far...) I might try to work some of this information in the article in the next few days if time permits. Also, please note that I came up with these after only a few minutes of searching, so I'm sure there are still other sources out there... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are some interesting sources there Kahn. They tell us nothing new about O'Brien's life, but the commentary on his involvement in the republican movement might sway me. (Never heard of Lexis, is it a paid subscription site?) I still think BIO1E applies, he still was only involved in one minor event of the Troubles, which received little press attention compared to others. As per BIO1E, "cover the event, not the person". I'm going to directly quote Jayron32 from a Village Pump discussion last year:

The issue about BLP1E is that, even for people famous for one event, there exists reliable biographical material on those people outside of that event. If a person becomes famous for a single event, and then, as a result of that event, reliable extensive biographies are done of the person some time later, then there is extensive source material about the person. There is a difference between that and a person whose ONLY extensive coverage is the direct press coverage of the event itself. Essentially, once a person has been covered in a reliable source as a person of their own right, BLP1E no longer applies. However, if ALL of the coverage of a person is part of the coverage of the event, and that only, THAT is the type of coverage that BLP1E is meant to stop. If a person makes the news for a single event, and then receives no further coverage beyond that event, then BLP1E applies... If the single event leads to coverage of that person's life outside of the event BLP1E does not apply.

1E absolutely applies here. Have "reliable extensive biographies" been written about O'Brien? Definitely not. I'd be willing to look at a recreation of an article on the event, but he fails WP:N, and more specifically 1E. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, and I wouldn't be opposed to merging this information to an article like Aldwych Bus Bombing or some other title. That would also allow for some additional detail about the event itself that wouldn't be appropriate for a biography article, but it would also still allow us to include that context about his involvement with the Republican movement and what it says about their recruiting tactics... (And yes, Lexis is a paid subscription service. I have limited access to it from work.) — Hunter Kahn _(c) 22:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see how BIO1E doesn't apply in this case. The coverage is only in relation to the incident. I do not believe that the source for the biographical information can be considered an independent reliable source, which leaves even less for the article to go on. Quantpole (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just another article on WP about a dead Provisional IRA member. Can't see how it meets notability requirements. A few single mentions of his name in passing don't pass muster. Mooretwin (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aldwych Bus Bombing Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; this is a blatantly politically motivated AfD. A bus bombing in London "not significant"? It got front page coverage for days. (Stu, I would have thought you'd know better than to open up a whole new arena for troubles-related disputes - now we'll get Republican editors tagging every article on any minor Unionist for deletion). Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just said it yourself - the bombing was significant. But is O'Brien? Read the discussion. As for front page news for days, take a look at WP:EVENT. MickMacNee (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "blatantly politically motivated AfD". Sarah, please explain that. I've a lot of respect for you, I hope I'm not about to lose it. Are you suggesting that I nominated the article because the subject is a republican? This would seem to be a bit contradictory then. I'm interested in improving notable articles, and nothing else. If there are non-notable unionist bios out there, then point me in the right direction and I'll nominate them myself. You say a "bus bombing in London not significant"? Maybe it is, that remains to be seen. What's certain is that O'Brien himself is not notable. I hate to repeat myself, but this article is a clear example of a biography failing BIO1E. It's blindingly obvious. In these cases "cover the event, not the person" - per the policy. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 23:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, I do suspect bias which isn't to say I don't have a lot of time for you. I think you know what I am saying here; this Afd is potentially opening up a "new front" in the troubles-related row. I'm nonplussed (in so far as I can be) that you consider there is some doubt about the significance of the bombing. "cover the event, not the person"? So, why didn't you suggest a merge rather than a deletion? Sarah777 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I'm all for compromise to reduce tensions, but not at the expense of the encyclopedia. This isn't opening a "new front", if certain editors feel that it is, then the project would be better off without them. AFDs should be considered on the facts, nothing else. If I was to assume bad faith, I would suspect that some people are voting keep here simply because the subject is a republican. So am I the one who should be accused of bias? I haven't proposed a redirect/merge to an event article as I'm not 100% sure it would qualify as notable either. I remain to be convinced either way, but if we found an event article to be worthy of inclusion, I'd of course be willing to help develop and improve it. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought his actions would automatically make him notable. All 911 hijackers have their own article because they were notable for their actions. Doesn't the same apply here? Jack forbes (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killed 2,976 versus killed 0 ? Not even comparable. If he is automatically notable for simply being a dead terrorist, as if BLP1E doesn't exist, then we need to write that notability guideline, because it doesn't exist right now. MickMacNee (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Mark David Chapman? He has his own article, even though he is only known for one single event. Ditto for John Hinckley, Jr and Mehmet Ali Agca.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the difference is the amount of press/media attention that each received. O'Brien - hardly any. A few articles mention his basic background details but that's about it really. Compare this to Chapman for example, who has received widespread and extensive attention regarding the actual murder, and his life prior to and after the murder. He's been portrayed in three films, been interviewed by People magazine etc. It is these differences which make Chapman pass BIO1E, and O'Brien fail. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine but, how many 911 hijackers were interviewed? Well, none, they were all dead of course. How much do we know of them individually, well, almost nothing. Also, whether or not thousands or none died surely your criteria for an article on them should be the same for this nomination. Don't you think by that criteria they should be merged into the main article? We shouldn't have a rule and use it sparingly. Jack forbes (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, do you mean because there are articles on the 911 hijackers there should be an article on O'Brien? I take your point. Admittedly I haven't read the hijacker articles, but if as little has been written about them as O'Brien, then they would fail also fail BIO1E and should be redirected. But good luck trying that! Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah would you listen to yourself! Get a bit of cop on will yeh. Now the subject is notable enough for an article, so get over it. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's some impressive reasoning there Domer. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When judged against the purile jibberish you are spouting I agree it would seem impressive reasoning. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, your last few comments haven't exactly been constructive or aimed at advancing the discussion. So why make them? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to cover the event. I've quickly scanned all the references and they all appear to identify O'Brien with the bus bombing. The bus bombing was notable, but I believe O'Brien is only notable because of that event and not for any other reason. Therefore, I can understand why this article exists, given that there's no article about the bus bombing, but I believe it should be the other way around. --HighKing (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be acceptable, move the article from the 'person' to the related 'event'. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see nothing here that makes the subject notable for anything other than the nature of his death, which is not in of itself enough for Wikipedia. I do however agree with those above that an article on the event itself would be appropriate into which much of this material could be merged.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found some newspaper sources that deal with O'Brien's background in reasonable detail. Will do some more work and expand the article in the next 24 hours or so. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MuZemike 20:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Shanker Mishra[edit]

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

I removed the ((db-test)) tag because this article is not a test. Notability is also asserted by Mishra's publication of several books.

Possibly non-notable lawyer. I have brought this article to AfD to consider whether or not Manu Shanker Mishra is notable. The article lists three worldcat.org links as sources; however, none of them are accessible.

A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources. If sources can be found to establish notability or if it is shown that the subject passes WP:PROF, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : This looks like an elaborate astroturfing / self promotion campaign. the worldcat references, had me fooled for a moment. There are a lot of commentators pushing mishra's name in unrelated web forums like here, here and here. The claims about him are bizarre. The lawyer himself seems to exist - here is a website with a photograph of mishra. The modus operandi seems to be post a large number of comments in different names in unrelated blog posts, article comment threads all referring to Mishra and his books. The common names they use are trish borgese, Prof. R N Yadav, Gerdt Corpeleijn, navneet kumar, mrigendra ranjan, Shilpa Modi, anoop singh patwal, Turrel Matisoff, Ashutosh Rai, allen foster, lance bensch, Samuel Ignacio Aguil and laura grimblay (same user name who is pushing mishra in wikipedia). User_talk:Laura.grimblay tried to add stuff into the New Age article as well and has been since reverted. Speedy deletion (hoax article) if possible--Sodabottle (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete< sources are CornellUniversity Library catalogue,Call Numbe PR9495.25M57 2007 (Chogyal),Yale University Library Catalogue, Call Number BL1237.34 M36 2005 (Chogyal), University of Cambridge Classmark C203.c.7806, (Chogyal, SOAS Classmark JA821.3/599664 (Chogyal, Rutgers University Library catalogue call no PR9495.2SM57 2005, Columbia University Library Catalogue Call Number PR9495.23.M57 2005g, LL.B Washington College of Law Library Call K230.M35 2006Oxford University Call Number Jurisp 510 m294a.LSE Classmark K460 M29,Harvard University catalogue Hollis Number o11740461, Peace Palace Library Request Number 392 E 49,Google Book Search, Abe Books, Alibris, Amazon for Methodological Frame of the Field,Princeton University Library Call No. Q A8.4.M365 2005, Cambridge University Rayleigh Library Classmark 99M LMS Barcode 2807952085.59.88.176.114 (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC) — 59.88.176.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Google Scholar and News returns nothing; Google Books returns 1 hit (His book of Indic poetry Cho-gyal)

A search using the transliteration मनु शंकर मिश्र (findsources added above) returned nothing for Google Scholar and Google News. Google Books returns nothing for the entire phrase. If I got the transliteration wrong (I used Google Translate), please provide the correct one and I will do another search. However, unless anything else crops up, I do not see that Mishra is notable. No one is disputing the fact that he has published books - but that in itself does not make him notable (and the books themselves do not appear themselves to be notable - see Wikipedia:Notability (books)). Mishra appears to fail WP:BIO and specifically WP:AUTHOR. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entire objections are from the State of Kerala,India. Sodabottle,Cunard, Mathew Yeager are able to do research in a couple of seconds. It all stems from a news in Lima bean exposing one Manu Joseph, a journalist with Outlook magazine from Kerala. The sources are verifiable and Newspaper reports and book reviews in newspapers can be provided>59.88.176.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC). — 59.88.176.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment to 59.88.176.114: You are sounding a bit paranoid. Where is there any indication that Cunard or Sodabottle did research in "a couple of seconds"? I have no idea how long they researched for, but Sodabottle's !vote was added almost 2 hours after Cunard put the article to AfD - plenty of time to research. I assume "Mathre Yeager" is meant to be me? I spent about 20 minutes looking for sources (if you look at my contributions, you'll see the gap!). Rather than claiming that we are not researching this person, or that there is a conspiracy, may I suggest that you find reliable, independent sources that show that Mishra is notable? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have done a few searches myself (Manu Shanker Mishra), (Manu Mishra) (Shanker Misra) (M.S. Mishra)(मनु शंकर मिश्र) to try to see if I can find sources for this article, and I have not come up with any substantial sources on the subject. What I do find interesting is that what does often come up are comments made on articles about the Nobel Prize and "Most Influential People" articles suggesting that the subject be listed. It almost appears if there is a coordinated effort by a group of people to have "Manu Shanker Mishra" mentioned in comments on major articles. That aside, I see no articles at present that can verify this subject's claim to notability. If a series of articles in any language can be produced to show notability, I am willing to change my vote, but at present, there is nothing in the article that meets verifiability standards. Mrathel (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK ,have it your way, the entire objections are arising within seconds from a coterie of journalists who run a blackmailing racket.Manu Joseph was impersonating as an expert on super string , The Times of India, Tuesday July 4 ,2006, Each and every objector is afraid that they are exposed. This matter requires serious consideration as these pressure to delete is coming within seconds. If you would care to check out thes objectors they are all false e mail ID'S. More details Russian Academy of Sciences, Sobolyev's Mathematics Institute 53 M 26,for Methodological Frame of The FieldIndian Institute of Technology, Kanpur Call No. 510.1 M319M, Indian Institute Of Technology, Bombay, 213386 167 Mis.59.88.176.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC). — 59.88.176.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment to 59.88.176.114: a) I am not a journalist and am not from Kerala b)I hadnt heard of Mishra before today and have no involvement whatsoever c)Stop being paranoid. There is no one out to get you. Please note i found Mishra's firm's website and a TOI article proving existence (why would i do that if i am out to get you?) d) It takes hardly 15 minutes to run google searches with various permutations of Mishra's name. e)It is not my doing that all the search hits to Mishra seem like the result of a badly run SEO effort.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sodabottle on check is from Kerala, including Cunardand Mathew Yegar. This coterie is reacting because of Manu Joseph who impersonated Manu (Shanker Mishra) as he writes the books with the name Manu only.Check the impersonation by Manu Joseph in The Times of India, Tuesday, July 4, 2006.Google book search very well shows these books and their influence as well worldcat.org numbers are correct.Oh, the citation of Lund University ,Sweden for LL.B is Libris ID 11211460,Manu Joseph and this coterie raising the plea for fast deletion run a scam where they publish lists of Expected notabe Prize Winners from India.For these objectors seeking fast deletion the world maybe falling apart but wikipedia is not cited or treated as authentic in law courts.59.88.176.141 (talk)59.88.176.141 (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : :-)) Dude seriously, i am not from Kerala. (In case people are wondering, The 59.88.**.** IP block belongs to the State run ISP BSNL. It provides a dynamic IP service and IPs can be changed by switching the modem off and on )--Sodabottle (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let the world know that a women is a dude in cybercafe language.Kindly note that we do know about these editors. This coterie of journalists with their awesome research does not impress me.Manu Josepph impersonated. The research of so called news articles and newsmagazines may cut ice with Wikipedia but not with us.Neither Wikipedia nor newspaper reports are authentic and verfiable information in law.Laura.grimblay (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is hard to find. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Do Not Delete: Xxanthippe,is from the same IP address as Cunard,sodawater,Phantom Server,Mathew Yegar are all hoax and false e-mail ID's.It is the same scamsters from Kerala using a BSNL as 59.88.**.** IP blog. It provides a dynamic IP service and IP's can be changed by switching the modem on and off. Mr. Manu Joseph of Outlook magazine runs a racket in India publishing lists of expected noble prize winners and so on.Manu Joseph impersonated Manu ( Shanker Mishra)in the Times of India,July 4, 2006.The back pages of Chogyal,Methodological Frame of the Field and Legum Baccalaureus gives the dates as well as publication of reviews in journals,and newspapers.http://worldcat.org/oclc/69984201 http://worldcat.org/oclc/6259898 http://worldcat.org/oclc/478432047 http://worldcat.org/oclc/297203511 have been verified all over again and also the book sellers on Amazon, Alibris,Abebooks which are global.Laura.grimblay (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not from the same IP address as the above. Do a sock search if you insist. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I concur with Xxanthippe: if you believe that we are all the same person, then take this to WP:SPI. Can I also point out that no one has said that the books haven't been published - merely that there is no indication that either they or the author meet the notability criteria that Wikipedia has for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spartacus. Also because most of the article is an unintelligible jumble of call codes and the rest of it is an unintelligible jumble of string-theoretic new age buzzword mumbo-jumbo, there are no reliable sources, and the article presents no reason to believe that the ~~author~~ subject is notable. Borderline WP:CSD#G1 speedy deletion as patent nonsense. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably hoax. - TB (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you delete what was added. I am also a user of Wikipedia.All these are employees of the same company in South India of computer hackers.They have hacked worldcat.org numbers which are http://worldcat.org/oclc/69984201,http://worldcat.org/oclc 4744832047,http://worldcat.org/oclc/297203511.The Information Technology Act has criminal punishment for such hackers and bloggers who deface sites They are from the same site 59.88** **.Laura.grimblay (talk) —Preceding undated Any feel free to ask us the name of this South India based company where this site is and whose employees you all are.We doubt your academic qualifications.Your MD is going to be briefed.comment added 10:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC). 115.184.212.247 (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing verifiable to indicate notability. Nsk92 (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do not Delete, The South Indian Company for which these bloggers are employees is being sued.Each objection is a spam arising from 59.88** ** a state owned BSNL dynamic IP address, probably Infosys.These employees are using fake names and on being exposed are trying to coverup by flooding with fast deletion messages.115.184.136.197 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Comment: Do not Delete. We have the exact name of the employees of this South India based Company, the spam objections in fictitious names like Cunard to Xxanthippe should be deleted.The US Hq. be warned not to issue any outsourced business to this South India based company and as this company is not in favour of freedom of the internet it be condemned as a fraud company which uses spam and hacking to get business.Laura.grimblay (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Laura.grimblay (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Laura.grimblay (and anyone else who this applies to): I'm getting a bit fed up with your accusations that the people recommending deleting this article are spammers, etc. If you truly believe this, go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and put in a request to check if any of us are the same person. I don't know why you are so desperate to keep this article (I can only assume you have some connection to the subject) - but making such accusations will not keep the article. The only thing that will keep the article will be if reliable, independent sources are provided showing that Manu Shanker Mishra (not his books) are notable as a person. All your wild accusations (about sock puppetry, about those who are !voting "delete" being in the same place - and being bloggers from a South Indian Company, etc, etc) do not detract from the fact that there is insufficient evidence of Mishra's notability either in the article itself, or in any sources that the editors who have already commented here (whether you believe that we are who we say so or not) could find. This is my last comment on this issue, unless some reliable sources can be found showing independent evaluation of Mishra's notability -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, but I would not let it get to me. The accusations of this single-purposed account are not justified and there is nothing to worry about. That this editor has titled his or her last edit postmodern leads me to question whether or not the accusations of the "coterie of journalists" are even a serious objection to the deletion discussion or of they are somehow an allusion to Crying of Lot 49-style paranoia. In any case, if you feel it is disruptive, there are actions to be taken that won't feed those lurking under the proverbial bridge. Mrathel (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We understand your frustrations also.These fake names being used by you and other employees of the South India based company, Infosys, you work for.It is your desperation to get this article deleted.Manu Josephs link to your company is based on the scam already exposed here as Mr. Narayan Murthy's brother based in USA is included for the last 5 years in Expected Noble Prize winners.Do not act beyond reasonable prerogatives by using fake names, the timing, IP Server address, Area of origin everything is showing up in computer printout. Kindly retain these electronic records for production in coutrs when demanded. You can continue your spam flooding if you feel like.This is "Whomsoever it may concern".Notice.Kindly consult your legal department.Laura.grimblay (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is time for this time-wasting and ridiculous discussion to be closed. Can this be done within the rules? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes, I agree. I have posted a note at WP:ANI. Nsk92 (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Seems you are always connected to this page.It further appears only you have the right to ridicule others. Are you a notable person yourself that you pretended to be editor'o of Wikipedia. You will have enough oppertunity to meet these allegations once the jurisdictional issue is settled.Kindly continue your spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.218.22 (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC) It was left unsigned as this company personnel at the othe end disrupted creating editorial conflict.Laura.grimblay (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Laura.grimblay (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your wild and unfounded accusations; it is not going to help your cause in any way. Salih (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per several good-faith efforts by other editors above to find reliable sources in other languages. Since this person does not appear to themselves be the subject of substantial reliable sources, it seems likely that they are not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Jayron32 03:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and comments by User:Sodabottle and others. Didn't find any independent sources on the subject, or any reviews for his books or fringe theories. Worldcat results indicate that the books exist but are virtually unknown. Abecedare (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will move all those signed comments from the article to its talkpage. This is a mess. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing found to verify notability. Feel free to file a sockpuppet report on me as well if it will settle your fears. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 05:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Laura needs to knock it off and take it elsewhere. Seriously. feel free to file a sockpuppet investigation; right now, you don't even have checkuser-rights, so your accusations against everybody else are fbaseless. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons very ably given above by a number of lucid editors; and I note that I appear to be within a snowstorm being fought by a quixotic gnat, if I may mix my metaphors. -- Hoary (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Your spam is not intimidating. Please continue your notability debate.No-one is interested in your sok-puppet or South Indian Company. Nor are the allegations wild.You have been deleting explanations and other posts. Feel free to delete AfD or whatever.Do not threaten or try to bulldoze.Just keep the present electronic record ready to be shown at relevany places when the time comes.You have very conveniently made alterations to websites you were not authorized by the govt.to.Laura.grimblay (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Laura.grimblay is now blocked due to their disruptive editing. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been disruptive, it was certainly funny. -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With this snow, it's looking like a white Christmas.... Priyanath ^talk 05:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sahandra[edit]

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

Likely hoax. There are no sources about this drink. The article cites two sources:

1. Fischer, L. (1996). Designing women: cinema, art deco, and the female form Film and culture: Columbia University Press, 2003
2. Curtis, W. (2006). And a bottle of rum: a history of the New World in ten cocktails: Crown Publishers

However, neither book mentions Sahandra. A Google Books search in the first book (with the query "Sahandra") returns no results. Likewise, a Google Books search in the second book (with the query "Sahandra") also returns no results.

A Google News Archive search and a Google Books search return no relevant results. This topic fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first book (Fischer, Lucy (2003). Designing women: cinema, art deco, and the female form. Film and culture. Columbia University Press.) seems unlikely to contain much of a mention about this specific drink (or if it does, I would assume that it would be a very brief mention) - like Cunard, I can't find a reference to the drink via Google Books, and none of my local libraries have this book in their stocks, so I can't verify it myself. The second book (Curtis, Wayne (2006). And a bottle of rum: a history of the New World in ten cocktails. Crown Publishers.) simialrly isn't available for me to look at locally. I can find no references which include the book title and the word "Sahandra". In fact the only references I can find that mention either of these books and the word "Sahandra" is at this article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too was unable to verify the sources when the article was first submitted, and tagged it as a hoax. Agree with nom - it's likely a fictitious drink sourced falsely. Though I applaud the continued invention of new mixed drinks, the article as-standing is both a hoax and not a noteworthy concoction. DJBullfish 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MuZemike 20:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine[edit]

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

This journal, founded in 2008, has absolutely no independent, secondary sources attesting to its notability. Deprodded with some mention of being listed in a government directory. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor should it attempt to imitate a library catalog. As can be seen at the failed attempt to codify notability for journals, WP:Notability (academic journals), there is no consensus to allow people to advertize their product on Wikipedia just because it is an academic journal. Abductive (reasoning) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Journal included in the rather selective PubMed database, showing clear notability. Article is not an advertisement as claimed by nom. --Crusio (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance on Pub Med is not consensus. What exactly are their criteria for inclusion? Wikipedia's article does not say. Look at the contributions of the article creator, User:OpenAccessforScience; all the articles are promotional, a clear COI and SPA. Abductive (reasoning) 08:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance on PubMed is indeed not consensus. However, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals) shows that there are people that think that the proposed guideline is too permissive, as well as those who feel that it is too exclusive. Consensus therefore does not seem to be possible, at this time. For me, inclusion in PubMed is enough evidence of notability. (The journal selection process is described here, note that only about 20-25% of proposed journals are accepted for inclusion, which seems a rather high standard). As for the article being promotional, yes, they were created by an account that seems to have a COI (but not necessarily, this could be a researcher who feels strongly that OA is the way to go, this is not necessarily the publisher of this journal), but I have extensively re-written the stub and I don't think that any promotional language was left. --Crusio (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article is clearly not an advertisement and WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't apply here. The article barely passes WP:RS. Deletion, however, is premature. Warrah (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean WP:NOTDIRECTORY in the sense that having articles for every journal that is listed in outside directories like ISI, PubMed or Scopus is an attempt to duplicate those outside directories. As far as I am concerned, if one can't add encyclopedic content to an article, and there are no sources for notability, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 20:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By premature, do you mean "it'll be notable someday"? Abductive (reasoning) 20:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncerrtain Unlike Crusio, I do not consider being in PubMed as definitive proof; But the journal is also in Scopus, which is relatively more selective, and that supports notability. The problem here is that it is a very new journal: it is only at v.2, and has published only 33 papers in 2008 & 32 papers in 2009 --and it is too early for there to be a citation record yet, and the publisher is a newly established one, publishing only journals of this general importance. . Looking at secondary factors, the editor in chief can be identified in Web of Science-- his is a senior researcher in a good hospital, but not a department head, and he has published 75 papers, with highest counts 38, 36, 32 in good journals , h=14, which in a field like his is probably notable, but not very notable. The Associate ed. in chief, Ayala, is very notable. Theeditorial board seems to be a long list of everybody he knows. About 50 libraries have cataloged it, but most of them are from the same region as his hospital, and it is not quite the same commitment to catalog an online free journal as to actually subscribe to a paid one. Looking at the articles published, about half are from first-rate universities. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discussions above have prompted me to do a little bit more research on this journal. The Editor-in-Chief seems like has >200 publications from his services in various universities/institutes. The 75 published papers cited above might be those only from his current institute. He also has 9 active NIH grants, 8 R01 and 1 R21 which is extremely reputable under today's ecomomic and funding situation. I did not check his funding history, but I can imagine his track record given his current funding status. More than 50% editorial board members have active NIH research fundings. I also notice that there is an Member of National Academy of Sciences of USA in the Founding Editorial Board of this journal ^[1], which may also support the notable status of this journal.OpenAccessforScience (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability does not descend from other topics. Abductive (reasoning) 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability presented. - Altenmann >t 23:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crusio and DGG. It's a science journal, it's not crank, could be used as RS, and there is no harm in having it on Wikipedia. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the fiction fans will say there is a double standard, which will be true. There are a lot of journals, something like 300,000 active ones. None of the keep arguments presented so far rely on anything other than wishful thinking. Abductive (reasoning) 22:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as moot - article has been partially merged, and redirected to Queen of Elphame. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicevenn[edit]

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

Likely hoax. This article about a Scottish Goddess has lacked sources since its creation by Gethzerion101 (talk · contribs) in August 2005. On 00:55, 10 December 2009, QuartierLatin1968 (talk · contribs) tagged this article as a hoax, writing "what are the sources? what kind of name is Nicevenn? what connection is there between these wildly differing names?"

A Google Books search returns no usable results; several of the results are from Icon Group International, which reprints Wikipedia articles. Unless sources are found to verify that this topic exists, this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the more common spelling is "Nicnevin", of which this is a plausible variant. As you'd expect with Anglicized Gaelic, there will be several spellings. Nicnevin is a relative or other name of the Queen of Elphame, IIRC. This may not actually be a hoax, but may need to be moved and expanded. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wouldn't delete just yet. There's a good deal of utter nonsense dreamt up in Neopagan circles, with dramatic leaps of fancy to give them wings (this is not a slur, by the way, I'm a pagan myself), but there may actually be some basis for this. Nicnevin could be a better anglicization of a Gaelic name. That's a great lead. I do, however, question what the link might be with "Dame Habonde, Abundia (German), Satia, Bensozie, Zobiana, or Herodiana", let alone La Befana. Is there any substance here, or is this list no more than a grab bag of female characters from European folklore of various nationalities? Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicnevin seems to be more of a crone figure. Google Books confirms at minimum that she's a subject in Katharine Briggs's Dictionary of Fairies, which I have at home. Somewhere. I will see if there's enough there to make an article. Astounded that we don't yet have an article on the Queen of Elphame yet; if we did, that and perhaps this might profitably be redirected there. The Neo-Pagan approach typically is interpretatio graeca on steroids: all female figures of folklore are goddesses, and all goddesses are aspects of one universal goddess. That sort of thing needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but that doesn't turn this into a hoax quite yet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might have found something. On pages 279-280 of this 19th-century book, we find Nicnevin compared with Habundia, Hecate and the Gyre-Carlin under the heading of ‘fairy queen’. Apparently Nicnevin appears in something by Sir Walter Scott, and more obscurely earlier. Let's say keep (but we'll need to rename it and clean it up). Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC) and 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly not hoax, though it needs to be expanded into a proper article after suitable research. Another possible spelling seems to be "Niceven". DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to keep harping on this, but possible according to what? Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have created a very basic article about the Queen of Elphame, and at least provisionally redirected Nicnevin to it. I don't see any genuinely old attestations of the spellings Nicevenn or Niceven, and I suspect they are of relatively recent origin. The basic ground of this article is covered there now too, although the identification with Italian legends is probably still a bit of a stretch. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per confirmation that this is not a hoax. Redirect to Queen of Elphame#Nicnevin per Smerdis of Tlön. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Novo[edit]

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

This article about "the primary superhero in Marvel's upcoming 2010 motion picture 'Have a Go Hero'" appears to be a hoax. A Google search returns no indication that this fictional character exists. The subject fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the person who flagged it as a hoax. I did quite a bit of checking and nothing comes up in connection with comics, Marvel or Starkiller. In fact the main Nate Novo I can find is someone on a number of social networking sites (which is itself a bit suspicious given the lack of any other candidates). It may the name is wrong, which would throw off our checking (which is why I flagged it rather than speedy deleted, just in case) but I see nothing to support that this, as described, exists. (Emperor (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - I can't even find anything about the movie or a British comic book company "Starkiller," so I think we can safely assume this is a hoax. Annalise (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find the comic book company or a 2010 Marvel film. Since even the casting of such films is big news covered all over the place, I feel I can safely assume hoaxery here. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NHS BasketBall 11[edit]

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

This article appears to be a hoax. A Google search returns no results to verify that this game will be released (the article says that the release date is September 2010). Cunard (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has all the earmarks of a hoax. Even for "NHS basketball" and "EA Sports", you'll find nothing from EA Sports itself, and only one link to a blog-- and even that one is broken. The idea of high school players being featured on a video game is ridiculous anyway, unless they want to break half a dozen NCAA rules on eligibility. Mandsford (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G3). Dalekusa (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete appears, like the other 2 articles created by this editor, to be a hoax RadioFan (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to E equational theorem prover. This AFD is quite tarnished, however there is a consensus. Article was tagged for ARS on 13 December 2009, and no edits have come of it. Consensus is to merge, and that's how this is getting closed. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 12:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Schulz[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)

Note Nominator has been banned as an abusive sockpuppet, and his nominating comment removed per WP:BAN. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to E equational theorem prover (he is sort of WP:1E) though I have no idea if that topic is notable. Springnuts (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's up to the community to decide this. My major claim to Wiki-fame is WP:PROF#1, verifiable via Google Scholar (as of now, the first page is all mine, the second has one article by another Stephan Schulz). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non-notable. Simply a Vanity Page just like his friend's: William Connolley. At this rate, Wikipedia is going to end up being a directory of the Bio's of really boring non-entities - "who just happen to be Wikipedia Admins." ~ Rameses (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (indef. blocked)[reply]

Comment. William has achieved something in academia. So, if we get a lot of these so-called "boring Bio's", then that is perhaps a good thing. Count Iblis (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is by definition not a vanity page, nor is Connolley's. Neither wrote their own page. Connolley's was written by User:Ed Poor, and Shultz's was begun by User:JosefUrban, and he has never edited the page. You may wish to correct your statement. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no outside articles seem to support the idea of notability here. Article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. ~ UBeR (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find this AFD? Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter? ATren (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin will be made aware that Uber was inappropriately canvassed to come here. I wanted to give Uber the opportunity to come clean. It's a shame you took that away from him. Hipocrite (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be nice if there were references from reference works — boring or not, IF this guy shows up in multiple reference books, then he's notable.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (without deletion)/weak keep as per User:Enric Naval. If more references can be found, then by all means resurrect the article.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with E equational theorem prover if no more sources are provided. (Please, do the actual merge, copy the content from one article to another before deleting it, make a new section called "author" or something) P.D.: or simply make a redirect. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (without delete) per Enric and Springnuts above. Enough notability and relevance, and short enough, for coverage in the E equational theorem prover article. Verbal chat 16:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Stephan Schultz has enough notability in the academic world to be allowed to have a wiki page devoted to him. Count Iblis (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. An academic too junior to have a permanent position, his research does not yet seem to have the impact needed to pass WP:PROF: there is one highly-cited paper, "E, a brainiac theorem prover", but the others have too many authors or too few citations to really convince me. Also, I think WP:BIO1E applies. And of course, his Wikipedia work is praiseworthy but not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, certainly not notable as an academic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's the sort of thing I'd like to be able to use WP to look up, if I was interested in this chap or his work. I think he seems to have worked on enough bluelinked stuff to be worth leaving in. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another case of someone who might be notable in the future, but is not notable now. I argue that the basic issue here is that this person's notability claim rests essentially on a single published idea: the "E theorem prover", so WP:BIO1E does seem to apply, as David Eppstein has pointed out. What is the evidence for this line of argument? First, outside of this single paper, the subject's overall publication record appears to be pretty marginal. This particular case is not entirely straightforward because of the commonality of the name, but this query from WoS ("Author=(Schulz S*) Refined by: Institutions=(TECH UNIV MUNICH) AND Subject Areas=(MEDICAL INFORMATICS OR COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE OR COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS OR COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI") shows papers with a citation list of 55, 10, 8, 5, 0, 0... (The 55 citations is for the E theorem paper.) Second, if you check the "bluelinked stuff", you find a bit of a walled-garden (WP:WALL) here. Specifically, Stephan Schulz and E equational theorem prover do not have many substantive external links besides the ones to each other. Third, you don't really find much general info about the software besides the usual open-source-software type web distribution sites. For example, it returns 0 hits on G-news. So, although the e-prover software might be useful, it is probably not any more notable than the average open-source package. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Google Scholar is more reasonable than WoS in computer science. The "E" paper has 173 citations, but there are also other papers with 60, 49, 42, 41, 38, 36, 36, 35, 33, 33, 32, ... citations. You can try something like "author:Stephan-Schulz (theorem OR satisfiability OR prover OR reasoning)" in Google Scholar – I think most of the hits are about this particular Schulz. That said, I agree that an average non-notable professor tends to have similar or better citation counts in this field. — Miym (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to echo what Miym says: WoS is a bad source for computer science. There's even a reliably sourced note in WP:PROF that says so. But in this case the Google scholar numbers don't really show a different pattern. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per David Eppstein and Agricola44. Nsk92 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or redirect~~ for arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to E equational theorem prover. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator has been blocked as an abusive sockpuppet and User:Rameses engaged in canvassing, but this discussion seems to have gathered uninvolved participation. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per 2/0 and Enric. I think notability is ok for an article but there is not yet enough verifiable content for a separate article. If the rescue squad can find 250 words worth of content I would change this vote to keep (or demerge if later). --BozMo talk 14:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - my bar for notability is pretty low, and I think Stephan exceeds it by virtue of the work he's done on automated reasoning. ATren (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps your bar is low, but how would say he measures-up against any of the consensus criteria that might actually be relevant here, e.g. WP:PROF? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep He has won notable awards, such as the CADE ATP System Competition. If an individual excels in his profession, and/or wins awards considered notable in that profession, then they are considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 19:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If you check the history of that article – surprise! – you find it was created (and only edited) by none other than Stephan Schulz – the WP:WALL in this garden is growing. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  - My dear Agricola44--
    When you add parenthetically "and only edited", you are — wittingly or otherwise — falsely implying that there are a number (plural) of edits to the article and that is simply not the case. The topic may or may not be notable; (I neither know nor care.) if you feel that the said article warrants an AfD, then by all means please nominate it for one. I find this shadowboxing to be quite tedious. If you feel that User:Stephan Schulz created that article in order to help lend notability to himself, then please say so.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, I guess. It is a fact that he was the only ed at the time and I think my wording did indeed clearly make the "notability lending" point that you just re-iterated. Likewise, I do not know if the other article is notable. It doesn't matter at the moment, since we're not debating that one here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      - I didn't read your original message similar to NBahn. But just to clear this up: I have neither created not edited Stephan Schulz, and I didn't even know it existed for a substantial part of its life time. I did and do edit create articles in my field of specialty, which is logic and deduction, and in particular implementations and practical aspects of logic and deduction. CASC is notable among experts - it's one of the main attractions of the major conference on deduction, its covered in several journal articles, and its referenced over and over in the literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not so much an award as a prize for winning a competition. And the winner of the competition was not Schulz personally, but E equational theorem prover, his software. So even if one argues that it's a notable prize, I think WP:BIO1E and perhaps also WP:INHERITED still apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to E equational theorem prover. I think he's not yet notable enough to have his own article separate from his best-known work, but there's sufficient notability to add his bio to his work as its developer. Galatee (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This E equational theorem prover is itself not notable. It has not moved beyond its little group of proponents, as can be seen in its Google Scholar search. Notice that most of the articles are either by S Schulz, or are not peer-reviewed. I could not find any that were review articles. Since Schulz' entire claim of notability is based on this one invention, his article cannot be kept. Abductive (reasoning) 06:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong search. The system proper is just called E - an inherently ungooglable term. The long phrase is only used for clarity. The main reference for E has more that 170 hits, and other papers describing things in E up that by a factor of two or so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide third party, peer-reviewed, review articles that are about E. Abductive (reasoning) 09:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a much stronger standards than WP:N requires. But answers provided at Talk:E equational theorem prover, where they are more apropos. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles written by you are not independent, and primary sources are also not appropriate. A paper in which somebody uses E as part of their Materials and Methods, for example, would not be considered appropriately analytical. Abductive (reasoning) 00:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For exactly the same reasons we still have Elonka Dunin. And prior to the shrill cries of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS parse the sentence correctly - its for the same reasons - go look them up. Shot info (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Badgered and couldn't be bothered with the endless arguing... Shot info (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus at the most recent AfD for Elonka seemed to be that her notability had nothing to do with her Wikipedia editing, but stemmed from the fact that she was well-covered by multiple stories in major media outlets and thereby passed WP:GNG. Are you claiming that the same is true for Schulz? If so, then where is this supposed major media coverage? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"seemed to"...I'm convinced! Shot info (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then you tell me, specifically, what the argument for keeping is, rather than just making vague allusions to another case, assuming that people will read something into it that makes sense, and then making sarcastic remarks when they don't get it. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets WP:BIO for the low level of WP:N that Wikipedia has. Naturally certain editors like certain articles and not others and will attempt to demolish all and sundry opinions contrary to their own. Article needs probably improvment but it meets WP:N - curiously the same arguements elsewhere in WP for BIOs. Rather than support the bad faith nomination, how about you try and improve the article? Shot info (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO requires that the article contain multiple reliably published sources, independent of the subject, that provide nontrivial coverage of the subject. So, since that is the basis of your keep argument, I ask you again, where is this supposed coverage? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it meets policy - you don't - that's all perfectly fine in the great and wonderous encyclopedia called WP. But heck, feel free to add a notch to your "arguements you just had to win belt" - Kilgore had something to say about victory :-) Shot info (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would be happier to lose this argument: my bias is, in general, to keep rather than to delete, and if sources showing him to be notable can be found and added to the article, that's an improvement to the encyclopedia. So I'm encouraging you to convince me, rather than repeating slogans as you have so far. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established by references on the page. Racepacket (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After two previous discussions, and a long time for encyclopedic content to be found, this has still not developed beyond a dictionary definition. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloviate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an encyclopedia article on a word.

The big problem with 'encyclopedia' articles on words or simple terms is they always contain the same thing. First they define the term 'Bloviate is a term that means... then they list a few places or people that the term has been used by, and then they have a reference section, and it usually points to dictionaries. and then... nothing else.

Because of this, most terms aren't capable of being made into a true encyclopedic article; and it's ultimately because the centre of them is the term. There are some that can make it, but they're rare.

On the contrary, encyclopedia articles are about an underlying concept. For example Wikipedia's synergy is about non linear systems and gives numerous examples of real synergies in various fields (as opposed to the use of the word synergy), whereas the wiktionary article just defines it, and probably should have a few more usages than it does right now.

The trouble is bloviate is just a dictionariac article; it somewhat follows the layout of encyclopedia articles, but really it's just a badly written dictionary article on the word. It takes more than being quoted by a president and Bill O'Reilly to survive; it doesn't matter who said the word, the article has to be important for the underlying concept, not who said what. If you're about a term, and you only have definition and usage then that is dictionary territory.

I agree that the term is a notable term; but wikipedia articles aren't on terms. Plenty of terms are far more notable than this, and are not suitable either. Being notable isn't sufficient; the article must avoid transgressing all of the policies for it to be kept.

And it fails to do that, the article violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and hence, regrettably deserves to die a wikipedic death (per afd policy). Given the existence of wiktionary:bloviate I'm calling for delete. - Wolfkeeper 07:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've notified the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloviate (2nd nomination) about this AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —- Wolfkeeper 06:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary already has it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every stub article starts are looking like a definition, what separates them is how far they can be taken beyond that definition . This article is little more than a definition coupled with some unreferenced claims. The nominator is spot on here. This is and there is no indication that it will ever be anything more than a definition. Looking over the previous AFDs there was a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFF discussions along with many editors pointing to the topic's WP:POTENTIAL. It's 3 1/2 years later and the article really hasn't improved much. --RadioFan (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary wikt:bloviate. I find the information beyond dictionary-style content to be trivial. Does it benefit an encyclopedia user to learn that the word is used in the New York Times and The O'Reilly Factor? Cnilep (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloviate. There's more then a definition here, including history. It does need work, however.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: I would summarize the 'keep' arguments at the first AfD as, "Bloviate is a 'rich' word, which has particular relevance to (esp. American) politics." Is that a fair paraphrase of the reasons you have in mind? Cnilep (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the problem with the arguments made in the original AFD is the article is unreferenced beyond the dictionary definition. Any additional material int he article beyond the definition doesn't meet WP:GNG because it's not referenced. The history here appears to be original research.--RadioFan (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I call bullshit on the 'rich' word theory. If it's a rich word, where is the encyclopedic richness in the article? Or elsewhere? If the usage of the word bloviate was at the centre of international incidents or major advertising campaigns or something then it could be kept, but I don't see anything like that anywhere.- Wolfkeeper 19:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only three articles link this word. Two cite it as a synonym for some better term, the third, Warren G. Harding, defines the word differently than does this article. The other links are from discussions much like this one. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Words used by notable people certainly belong in dictionaries, but being used by notable people isn't sufficient cause to give them entries in an encyclopedia. I appreciate the sincerity of editors who believe that this word can be shown to have some sort of greater significance, but, after two-and-a-half years without proper demonstration, I suggest that they work on something in userspace, and get back to the community of editors when they have something to show it. —SlamDiego_←T 07:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to mosque. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Converted mosques[edit]

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

Nothing notable. It's just a combination of 2 words, not anything anyone would look up. Nothing is written to denote any reason for it being here. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with mosque or delete (there's nothing much to merge). Nothing here warrants its own article. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This topic appears to have received some coverage in reliable sources. See this 1876 Google Books entry. I recommend a merge/redirect to mosque. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to mosque where a paragraph can be added on this sub-topic with sources as found by Cunard above. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to mosque Apart from the way they are acquired, there's nothing differentiating converted mosques from regular ones; too little difference for a separate article, but the practice is worth mentioning. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha. Some say Merge? There is only 1 sentence of substance (the first one). I guess to me, that would be a delete, hence my nomination. Perhaps weakly redirect? I guess you could convince me, but even that sounds unnecessary when deleting would still enable it to be recreated if there ever was anything of substance at mosque that needed to spill over. It's not like the people editing mosque have been dying to write volumes on this supposedly meritorious topic. I guess I will go back to sleep.I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty Watt Shaman[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC. most of the gnews hits relate to concert listings [12]. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This article has a very long history with many people involved, so I say "weak delete" because maybe the AfD will encourage interested people to add evidence of notability. I am going to add a notability edit tag as extra encouragement. However, if evidence of notability has never appeared in the article's 4+ years of existence, maybe it never will. If not, then the article should be deleted. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a notability tag in 200+ articles in my time on WP. only on 1 occasion has someone ever bothered to improve the article after adding the tag. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes point 5 of WP:MUSIC - two albums on Spitfire Records. Lugnuts (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. It might not be the well known source some people hope for, but BNR Metal confirms the claim and the site's FAQ indicates it has a clear editorial process with rules for inclusion. Part is also confirmed by NME - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated by Lugnuts two releases on Spitfire Records satisfies criterion 5. Plus I just expanded the article from this Allmusic bio] and these two reviews [13] [14] also from Allmusic. (note to Mgm: BNR is a fansite and shouldn't be cited.) J04n(talk page) 02:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annals of Respiratory Medicine[edit]

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

Brand-new online journal appears to have absolutely no noteability at present. Maybe at some point in the future.

* Delete ... no sign that this is peer reviewed or otherwise notable. Springnuts (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Spoke too soon ... reserving judgment. Springnuts (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Annals of Respiratory Medicine, which has 5 Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 08:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also Delete Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, which has 7 Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 09:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. As far as I can see, neither has published a single article yet. Do not meet WP:Notability (academic journals). As an aside, I must see that I find the current AfD a bit unclear, it took me a moment to understand why Abductive had voted twice above... --Crusio (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you can't get it through AfC create an account and put it up yourself with the exact same text. Interesting strategy, but it's here now. Now we have a journal Google barely recognizes except for this article, and it's almost as if they were named to cause confusion; the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology" and the "Journal of Clinical Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Medicine" being different publications. Delete them both as nascent, non-notable journals. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Brand new journals with nothing yet published. Cannot possibly be notable at this point. (A new or even proposed journal from a really major publisher like NPG or the ACS can be notable immediately, just as a book from a really major author, but this is nowhere in that class.) With currently available software, it is trivially easy to start a free online journal. I don'r think anyone at this point even the publisher could claim this is notable, though of course it might become so. (but, FWIW, titles will necessarily be similar for different journals--there are only so many ways to word something). I am really tempted to call an article like this a G11 promotional speedy. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy/snow). Per all the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless the journal in question gets major press coverage for some reason, it needs to have published something to be considered notable. This is simply too early. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Arnold-Smith[edit]

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

dismally fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF, nothing in gnews, only 2 hits in gscholar [15] LibStar (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing out there that suggests he has made a significant impact in his scholarly discipline. Being the Chair of the local branch of an academic society is hardly notable per WP:PROF. Nor is being member of the court of a University where the court has over 150 members: [16] --Mkativerata (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The FRSC suggests that he may pass WP:PROF #3, but I'd be a lot more comfortable about making that argument if I could discern just what contributions to chemistry might have earned him that title. His Google scholar citation record has very little, but maybe there are better databases for this subject? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. [|This] does not help much. FRSC does not look enough for notability on its own. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom -- not notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Brock[edit]

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

I did a google search for Brad Brock, and I can't find any reliable sources on him. It seems as though he does not pass our WP:BLP, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ENTERTAINER policies. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC) - I think you mean WP:BIO. – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . As per nominator, not notable. Off2riorob (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this person is just a local only singer in the South Florida region whose record sales are non-verifiable and he has yet to sign on to a reputable record label and gain notoriety with the U.S. or even the world. I believe that such a person would not otherwise make it into a paper bound encyclopedia; therefore, I don't personally believe the entry can stand within wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.170.142.8 (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO ukexpat (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently fails WP:GNG -I am happy to change my !vote if reliable sources come out. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Maybe he can be included in the future when has reached Wikipedia notability standards. Ludlom (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to History of association football balls. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Approved[edit]

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

I don't see how this term could be a notable concept for an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Then you can't have looked very hard. Google Books and Scholar turn up plenty of sources. I've added a couple. Melchoir (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of association football balls and rename Association football balls. Certainly encyclopedic and shouldn't be deleted. However, there is unlikely to be enough material available to justify a full page let alone two. The history page is aready more than a history and we have scope for an excellent, unified article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bridgeplayer. The article for Football (ball) seems to encompass everything called a football. No matter how hard you look, all it shows is that FIFA, the sport's official body, sets standards for a ball used in competition. Every sport and league has standards. Mandsford (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant info as per Bridgeplayer; topic probably deserves a mention on Wikipedia but not as a seperate article. Giant Snowman 11:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I kind of agree that this is more of a note than an article. I think what Bridgeplayer mentioned seems to work best. Govvy (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to History of association football balls. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Inspected[edit]

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

I don't see how this term could be a notable concept for an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval redirects to Good Housekeeping, this should be deleted or more likely merged into FIFA. "FIFA Inspected" does seem to be a fairly well-recognized mark, though. --Glenfarclas (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA Approved. These articles should be merged, but that isn't a matter for AfD. Melchoir (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into FIFA. Petepetepetepete (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, but I think FIFA is too high a level article for one of their many approval schemes; see below. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On reflection, you're probably right. History of association football balls may be a better merge, as suggested below. Petepetepetepete (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of association football balls and rename Association football balls. Certainly encyclopedic and shouldn't be deleted. However, there is unlikely to be enough material available to justify a full page let alone two. The history page is aready more than a history and we have scope for an excellent, unified article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (although this seems to be a poser that imitates FIFA Approved). Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Giant Snowman 19:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to FIFA Approved and then merge the content of that article to a different article to be determined by the FIFA Approved AfD. – Pee Jay 20:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This should be at RfD instead. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suck_my_dick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Suck my dick

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

Nonsensical redirect with no encyclopaedic value. Kartano (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PlayGen[edit]

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

This article is likely a result of paid editing: see my post at COIN. As such wouldn't be here if it weren't for some unethical dealings behind the scenes. The subject of the article also fails our general notability guideline as well as WP:ORG as the subject hasn't recieved significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Of the 23 sources listed, all but one do not pass WP:RS as they either come directly from the company's website or they are press releases. Them From Space 04:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - a single article in Business Week only proves it has some notability - but note that one article is not enough for WP. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Piece on FloodSim at Sky.com - heavy on quotes, lacking in analysis though. Piece on SeriousPolicy at The Inquirer (originally from the Daily Mail, so all depends on if you think tabloids are reliable sources). Piece on the Nano... games at Business Week. To me, they all smack of re-worded press releases, but objectively speaking they might contribute towards notability. Marasmusine (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references/links are rehashed press releases, and there is nothing substantive in the article. When the promotional text ("have garnered a very positive response", "attracted the attention of high-profile scientific groups", and more) is removed, all that would be left is the promotional list of products. Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 06:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scene music[edit]

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

WP:OR,NOT,Notability Albert Mond (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding List of scene artists and Category:Scene to this nomination, as both wholly dependent on the scene music article. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article on a neologism based on a single source [17] which only discusses it as a fashion trend, not a style of music; insufficient to support a full article. The other 2 sources are urban dictionary and a blog, not reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. Also adding List of scene artists to the nomination. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on single source, fails WP:MUSIC, and unsupported sources. 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 04:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this has the potential to be like Emo and eventually get coverage from multiple sources, but at this point, it doesn't pass WP:V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annalise (talk • contribs) 04:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a meaningless entry. Scene music could mean anything. JBsupreme (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, I have no idea what scene music means, but if it is a new genre, then the article ought to be kept if it can be substantiated. After all, 30 years ago noone ever heard of punk, rap, or emo. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 30 years ago was 1979, punk had peaked commercially, and was about to go down in popularity. That was also the same year that Sugarhill Gang had the first international hip-hop hit with "Rapper's Delight," which inspired Blondie's 1980 hit "Rapture," according to that article. Nobody had heard of emo because it didn't exist, and neither did the Washington, D.C. hardcore scene which it would come from in the 1980s. (Albert Mond (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Ferry[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Members of orchestras are not automatically notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course orchestra membership doesn't make someone automatically notable, but this is a principal artist. If any member is notable, it's the person taking the lead in their instrument section. Also, the article mentions 2 CDs which if recorded with a major studio/label would meet WP:MUSIC. How it meets the criteria isn't yet clear, but it is quite possible it can, so this warrants further investigation from classical music experts. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've just sourced this article, cleaned it up and added recordings. I've listed 3 of his recordings where he appears as the trumpet soloist on two well-known classical music labels Chandos Records and Harmonia Mundi. He has an entry in Das grosse Buch der Trompete: Instrument, Geschichte, Trompeterlexikon‎. Note these articles:

Bradley, Jeff, Festival a vacation for notable trumpeter, Denver Post, July 29, 1996; p. F-08

International Trumpet Guild, Dennis Ferry on US lecture tour, August 2008

See also his entry at WorldCat.It wasn't all that hard to find sources establishing notability. Shouldn't this have been tried before proposing for deletion? Voceditenore (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music - Voceditenore (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following Voceditenore's sterling work (and echoing her sentiments, too). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and kudos to Voceditenore for expanding and sourcing the article, meets WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 01:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per voice.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haznu[edit]

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

I declined the CSD nomination, but this seems like it might be a hoax. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find anything to verify the article. Probable hoax. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Unverified, hoax, and non-notable. 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 03:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 03:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty sure this is a hoax. I can't verify anything in the article, and the mythology has a bit too much sex and drugs to be plausible. Hut 8.5 12:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. I too have been unable to dig up evidence they even exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Looking up the names of the supposed god pulls up nothing meaningful other than suspiciously profane slang. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VJ Tell-X[edit]

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

I cannot find any references to show he meets WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:MUSIC, WP:CREATIVE, or even WP:GNG. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable and no significant coverage. I'm sorry, but the article must be deleted. 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 04:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Danish[edit]

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

I do not believe this article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability as they apply to musicians. A Google search reveals no significant and reliable coverage of the subject. Furthermore, most--if not all--of the references in the article do not support the facts they are supposedly sources of. Aka042 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If that last source is even remotely reliable part of the text about his name and the book can be verified, but the sales' supposed source is locked behind a password protected site and there's no real evidence WP:MUSIC is met. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Lee[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of and GNEWS hits of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanking Love[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems to meet one of the requirements of WP:NF in its having a commercial re-release more than 5 years after initial release. Will do some research. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot about that part. I think that this might be saved. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worry. Its re-release in 2000 is more easily sourced than its initial, as I have found some places saying 1994, and others saying 1995. Will dig more later this evening. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and request input from Japanese language-reading Wikipedians. I have performed some cleanup and sourcing. Not only has the film had a re-release 5 years after its original release, but it has a strange history... marking the feature debut of an actual modern-day cannibal. With respects to the nom, I believe this one is savable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. weak, but still a keeper :P Cirt (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistabishi[edit]

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

Not sure that this meets WP:COMPOSER, i could be missing something tho... Tim1357 (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if this is deleted, suggest redirect to Mitsubishi as a plausible spelling variant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been covered by Knowledge Magazine multiple times as well as being signed to Hospital Records which is one of the most notable labels in drum and bass. His material is played on BBC Radio 1. I consider that enough to keep his entry but if drum and bass as a genre or Hospital Recs in particular aren't notable enough then it might be best to axe it.--98.174.169.79 (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing that he is

Unrelated to Mitsubishi, Corp, I would have to say that the plan to merge is not understandable and seriously, that is not going to solve this issue. As per 98.174.169.79 and Grim's comments, he is stated in some of the websites and resources mentioned above and below. and this makes it a weak keep. 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 04:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He's been mentioned in The Independent[18] and Mixmag[19], I've added a quote and some references. Grim²³ ★ 03:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - Per Grim23's comment above. 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 04:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvis Johnson[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Local politician with no significant media coverage. Singularity42 (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It needs to be expanded. --MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He has apparently won several awards. http://www.jarvis-johnson.com/7043589_71845.htm states: "He has received many awards since he has embarked on the challenge of creating, developing and molding young minds into becoming great leaders. His work and contributions have been recognized by countless organizations, such as: The National Association of Black Social Workers-Distinction Award, National Association of Black Public Administrators-Young Administrator of the Year Award, National Council of Negro Women-Houston Chapter Distinguished Service Award, Texas Association for the Education of Young Children-Advocate of the Year, and the H.E.S.P Union 'Pillar of the Community' Award." -- Eastmain (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there were reliable sources that were independent of the subject that also covered the awards (or really, covered Johnson at all), I may reconsider my nomination. But so far, I can't find any. Singularity42 (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN, and has zero references to assert any notability. Just being a politician doesn't make you notable (by Wikipedia's standards anyway). If he has won awards, third-party independent coverage needs to be found to "prove" it, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:POLITICIAN as local politician that holds a minor office. The name is common enough that finding anything relevant about him online is quite difficult. The current article is a only one sentence that asserts the office he holds. No objection to recreating this if someone knowledgeable comes up with additional information for establishing notability. Pcap ping 10:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete due to a lack of discussion, but this does not prevent an editorial solution such as a merge or redirect. Sandstein 07:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Gaze/Global Gays[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Global Gaze/Global Gays

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

No indication of notability for the article - no references for it at all that I can see - with the only references being for the end section which seems to be a general criticism of Dennis Altman's work JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to its author, Dennis Altman. Abductive (reasoning) 00:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Fyfe[edit]

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

I can't find any secondary reliable sources that give more than trivial coverage of the subject, failing WP:N and WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched Google News archives for Fyfe and his company [20]and found one article from 1994 from the Wichita Eagle. Sorry, and I do mean sorry, but that is just not sufficient to allow this article under WP:BIO. Mr. Fyfe appears to be a prominent businessman and an accomplished person, and it's a shame but Wiki guidelines don't seem to allow an article on him, when there are articles on so much absolute trivia. This is not a trivial person by any means. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered this web page trying to understand the Tyfo product created by Fyfe Co LLC. Rather than entirely delete the entire article, reference to Fyfe Co LLC should be retained. This product is being used for construction at our site. We are also understanding that the Tyfo products are very low VOC, at least the epoxies and A-B components. The article references to such a company are valid as I have just personally discussed the product with Ed Fyfe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to sign on to show who wrote the above Para. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammers046 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, possibly due to the nature of the company and the man in question, I don't think there will ever be enough sources to prove notability or make the article verifiable. There certainly aren't enough now. Even if we agree that we would like for this article to stay, there isn't a place for it in Wikipedia. Annalise (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It's worth noting that the nom has been indef blocked. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F.U.E.P.[edit]

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

Delete due to a WP:NALBUMS failure. No reliable sources to show any notability for this iTunes-only, non-charting release. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above user is a confirmed sockpuppet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is part of Lily Allen albums, and it was released recently (I thought) :P --MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 21:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable. --MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 21:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant. Which part of WP:NALBUMS does this pass? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note that iTunes-only albums are becoming more common and are the subject of some fairly detailed WP articles, for example The Complete Stevie Wonder, Bob Dylan: The Collection, The Complete U2. We can assume iTunes will expand this new marketplace, and none of these releases will chart because of current rules at Billboard. I'm also not sure if the WP:NALBUMS guidelines for music have caught up with these new developments yet. Therefore I have no vote, just this comment. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The remainder of Lily Allen's discography is notable enough for their own articles. Even though this is an EP, it makes sense to keep the article under the guidelines of WP:OSE, "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The EP is unique because it is Allen's only EP. It contains at least one charted song and a cover of a Grammy-winning one. I subscribe to C.Fred's idea that if this is the one non-charting entity in Allen's biography, making an exception so the biography is complete is a sensible thing to do. Also WP:NALBUMS says: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." This isn't especially written for EPs, but it makes sense to extend this and choose to redirect/merge if not enough sources surface rather than deleting the entire thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. iTunes-only EPs don't recieve much media coverege, but some information could still be found.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm not moving or renaming anything, as it seems we need more discussion on that before an agreement is reached. Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Ferguson[edit]

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

~~This has remained totally unverified since its 2005 creation.~~ Non-notable writer; book is extremely borderline, but a weak case can be made for it (unlike author). Orange Mike | Talk 03:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Well, the book DOES exist - it is listed at Amazon, although naturally they don't have any copies (it was published more than 100 years ago). ~~No other coverage on Google, no way to evaluate the significance of book or author.~~ --MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Keep After a little more searching I find that the book was considered significant enough that the National Library of Canada brought out a reproduction copy of it in 1980. I'll add that information to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Keep. Comment. See this and this for starters.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - There are a lot of books and a few of those seem as though they could be notable with a bit of work but I can't find any evidence that the woman herself is notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- clarification - there are not "a lot of books" by Ferguson, if that's what you mean; these all relate to the same book, her first and (AFAIK) only work. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Your complaint when calling for deletion was that the subject was unverified. It is verified now; both you and I have added references. Are you switching your complaint to non-notable? I'd like to be clear what criteria you are basing your call for deletion on. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

reply - your point is an excellent one; see my modification to original nomination. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the book title. We seem to have no biographical information about the subject other than that she wrote this book (unless she later moved south and is the same Ida May Ferguson who was children's librarian for the Minneapolis Public Library) but the sources in the article seem to be just about enough to show notability for the book. The precise title of the book seems to be in doubt, with some sources saying Tisab Ting, or, The electric kiss and some saying Tisab Ting, or, The electrical kiss: Worldcat sits on the fence and lists both. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! especially since she wrote under a pseudonym, Dyjan Fergus. About the title, the republished version uses "electrical", and so does the reference in the book about Canadian science fiction. But Tisab Ting, or, The Electrical Kiss is quite a mouthful. Maybe the article could just be called Tisab Ting. In any case I change my vote from Keep to Move. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, leave decision on possible move/merge/redirect to ordinary editing processes. Article on book is probably best result, but that's not an AFD decision. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, maybe rename later --- BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An author may write more books--and if the first one is notable, usually does, whereas a book does not normally acquire more authors. Therefore the usual case should be to keep the author article as much more likely to be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An author whose first book was published in 1896 is unlikely to be writing any more. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coccinella (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable and unsourced software. Article was tagged for notability and sources for nine months before being prodded. A user removed the prod, notabilty and unsourced tags from the article saying it had been sourced with a link to sourceforge. Appearing on sourceforge or in a XMPP directory do not show notability. Searching for sources does not show anything non-trivial on Google NEWS, BOOKS, or SCHOLAR. An article on pcquest mentions the software as a jabber client in a how-to article about setting up a jabber server. A paper on XMPP mentions three sentences that this software implemented an open source whiteboard, but it was too undocumented making difficult to port to other software. All other sources were about ladybugs. There is a software company called Coccinella Development Inc, but they produce flight training software, they are not the authors of this software, but get more google hits. In the end, it is up to the authors of this article to source it. They have the best chance to do so, had nine months to do so, and never did. Time to delete it for failing our inclusion criteria. Miami33139 (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, being an anonymous user, that no one will take any notice of me, but I really must protest. Disk space is cheap, this software is as notable as many of the geographical articles that litter Wikipedia. ~ anon 8 December. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.166.68.65 (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the anon IP above. By the way, your IP status doesn't make you powerless. I like to "anon-IP" because it exposes the dismissive, status-conscious, bullying users. It ultimately gives you the right kind of power - that of the actual sensibility of your own statements. :-)

72.93.182.136 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE -- REMOVING FRIVOLOUS TAG

This is totally notable! I looked it up in fact because I had just learned of it and I wanted to know what Wikipedia had to say about it. I think this tag is a disservice. The tagger should have first discussed the possibility of deleting on the talk page. Give discussion a chance. I'm removing the tag (if I can as a lowly anon IP), if you are really hard over about this, please discuss it (or at least try to discuss it) on the talk page first.

72.93.182.136 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate coverage in independent reliable sources. I recommend the IPs check out WP:ATA and WP:N so that they might improve their arguments to be more compelling. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. I am really hard about this. JBsupreme (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G7 by ChrisTheDude. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nermin Bibic[edit]

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

A subtle but definite hoax: this seems to be some British kid with a Bosnian name, not a ManU "footballer." Has falsified the titles of news articles cited in References. Will warn. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. Airplaneman ^talk 02:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: author blanked page, should now be speedy g7. --Glenfarclas (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Honors Program[edit]

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

No assertion of notability and no evidence of it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not even entirely certain what this is, but there are no reliable sources for it (or, for that matter, sources at all). It looks like even if it might eventually become notable, it's too new. Annalise (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under A7. No assertion of notability. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onani Master Kurosawa[edit]

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

Lacks third-party sources to prove notability. Makes no assertion of notability. Doesn't even have an entry on Anime News Network's encyclopedia. The first version of the article stated that it was a fan-made dōjinshi, which makes it fail WP:NFT. —Farix (t | c) 12:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a popular web comic but I can't find any RS's about it. Polarpanda (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supernumerary nose[edit]

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

notability Perfection (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Almost no google hits, I'm not even sure that these things exist --Perfection (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I smell a hoax. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on Google Results:
1. Scholar: One relevant hit at the U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health - however, I cannot access the actual text
2. Books: 39 hits, ranging from the 1800 up to about 2003. Not all of them are relevant, but some appear to be, but none of them seem to be significant coverage. See my note below
3. News: Nothing
4. Images: Nothing suitable
5. Search: Mainly blogs, forums, wikis - or the scholar/book links

All the cases in the relevant "Book" hits were either describing a third nostril on a single nose (technically a "supernumerary nostril") or a congenital double fistula of the lower lip. The "Scholar" result may be about one of these conditions - as the original Chinese article cannot be found online, I have no way of verifying whether it is or not.

With these results, I find insufficient evidence that anyone has ever had this condition, and so I can see no reason to have an article about a subject which is theoretical at best, impossible at worst. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't a hoax, it's a bad joke. Somebody just popped this one out of their nose, I guess. Would be BJAODN material if it were around, but still, at least I got a good laugh from this. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impressive name "supernumerary" in this case means "more than one". Unsourced, nothing but a defenition. We're all turning up our noses on this one, and even a person with only one nose can tell that this article stinks. If there's a source for the term, it can be mentioned in birth defect, although it seems to be a rare one. Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Supernumerary body part. Mangoe (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just read the article, it's stupid (one is at the right and the other at the left). It makes me laugh, really. --MisterWiki talk contribs 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The evidence there is such a thing as supernumerary nostrils should be covered in Supernumerary body part per the books mentioned earlier. Does anyone know someone in China who can look up the original text for the Google scholar pubmed citation? If it can be found and verified to contain an actual case, that should be merged too. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite loop (Cite)[edit]

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

Author removed prod for this non-notable, unrecognized concept. Apparently original research or a neologism. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently some kind of a joke. In any case, it falls under Original research. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blanchardb. --Michael Kourlas^{talk – contribs} 02:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, concept already covered at recursivity, etc. cute, though. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very silly and could be BJAODN material, but we're a little far from April 1. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is useless. Apart from possible original research and lack of sources, it looks like it's actually a meta-article, which Wikipedia doesn't allow (in the main namespace, at least). JIP | Talk 07:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it cites itself as a source. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Climate Act[edit]

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

Article should be deleted. Bills from previous Congresses that never became law don't warrant inclusion on Wikipedia, since there are at least 4000 every year. There was no contention, major endorsements, or even legislative movement on this bill. THOMAS is the appropriate location for a permanent record of it, not Wikipedia. Titomuerte (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - While it's true that bills which never became law don't warrant inclusion on WP, this bill seems to have gotten a decent amount of coverage in mainstream media, as evidenced in a google news search. The coverage seems to have significantly waned lately, which is what pushed my !vote to delete, as the notability of this bill appears to be temporary. Also, the external link to the house.gov site appears to be dead. SnottyWong talk 12:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article starts with the words "The Safe Climate Act (HR.1590) is a climate change bill". Surely that means that the article title, unless and until it gets passed, should be "Safe Climate Bill"? I'm more familiar with parliamentary procedures in the UK, but I'm still pretty sure that in the US nothing becomes an act until it has been passed by Congress and had whatever the equivalent term is for the royal assent. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while some proposed laws (Bills) could be notable, this is not. 24.97.138.94 (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Parkers-Iron Springs, Arkansas. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Springs, Arkansas[edit]

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

This article is of very low quality and should be deleted. The Parkers-Iron Springs, Arkansas article already covers everything stated in this article and is of much higher quality. Duchess of Bathwick (talk · contribs) 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Parkers-Iron Springs, Arkansas, which appears to be a recognized CDP.--Milowent (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parkers-Iron Springs, Arkansas. They clearly refer to the same place and it makes sense to redirect, to avoid recreation later.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep poor quality is now a basis to delete? Since when? Real place=keep. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parkers-Iron Springs, Arkansas. I'd almost always try to Keep an article about a real place, but in this instance all of the reliable sourcing I can find refers to the community as part of Parkers-Iron Springs. The combined area is its own Census Designated Place, which is a key US Statistical unit. The corresponding element of the combined community, Parkers, is a freshly-minted redirect to the combined Parkers-Iron Springs article. So, in this case, I'd say we redirect this title, as I just did with Parkers, and we see if anything about the two elements of the combination can be documented in Reliable Sources. Unfortunately, I'm not finding anything to back this as its own article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Parkers-Iron Springs, Arkansas. The general practice when two communities are merged into one CDP is to discuss both communities as part of the CDP, and this community doesn't look notable enough to be an exception. (Of course, when the U.S. Census Bureau stops merging CDPs in 2010, these can be split, but until that happens they belong in the same article.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IZ (toy)[edit]

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

non notable toy WuhWuzDat 06:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability requires multiple reliable sources. This article has one. If more sources appear, ask me to reconsider on my talk page. Miami33139 (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Keep. Notability is clear from looking at the first few of the 210 results from this Google News archive search. Whether this should be merged with Zizzle can be discussed on the article talk pages. I would add that this is the place to discuss whether more sources are available, not user talk pages. If you want to know how a discussion progresses then use your watchlist - how can we be expected to have a sensible discussion if every reply has to be copied to every previous participant's talk page, which would be the result if we all demanded the same privileges as Miami33139? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes closers can discount or ignore votes of people who don't bother to check back to see their sourcing concerns have been answered. To do otherwise is to delete articles on a technicality. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which I encourage. I don't need it copied to my talk page, but a watchlist doesn't show every entry to a discussion. If someone adds sources to an article (which I probably didn't watchlist) then a note to my talk page is an invitation, not an expectation. I follow AfD comments more than most users, who comment and never return. Miami33139 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are so many articles in Google News by reliable publications that it's not even funny. The titles also indicate the articles are exclusively about the company or the toy in question, which should satisfy the people who believe coverage needs to be substantial. =- Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonline agency[edit]

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

Blatant neologism that does not merit an article. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 02:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. Anna Lincoln 08:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speed-demon[edit]

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

I can't find any references to speed-demon in the context of CPUs anywhere, except used as a synonym for fast. This article has been tagged for not having references since December 2006, and has been tagged for original research since September 2007. The article's talk page is nonexistent. Tpk5010 _Talk^Contribs 02:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just hyperbole used by journalists. Redirect to Speed Demon after deletion. 70.29.215.186 (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This term is not a synonym for "fast". That would be an oversimplification. This term refers to the design philosophy of obtaining performance through high clock rates by using a simple microarchitecture implemented in an aggressive manner (a full-custom methodology, liberal use of dynamic logic, advanced semiconductor technology, etc.) If you can't find references for the use of this term, then you are not looking in the right places! I believe that I have seen this term used in the Microprocessor Report, various papers (mostly from IBM, they argued that the brainiac approach was better than the speed-demon in the early 1990s and notably changed their approach to speed-demon in the late 1990s, more in Fortress Rochester by Dr. Frank G. Soltis), Henessey and Patterson's CA:AQA (one of the appendixes?), various books, and magazines. Your argument for deletion is also largely based on the fact that the article is in a poor state and its been like that for some time. My response is that it is fixable. Being in a poor state for a long time is no grounds for deletion, its grounds for improvement. There are no deadlines. Rilak (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The material seems to be sound. But it really should be included in CPU which is the real topic being dicussed, not the expression "speed-demon." Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Speed demon" in the context of CPU design is what is being discussed by this article. I don't really understand why you think this article should be merged into CPU. If there is some confusion with the phrase in everyday English, then move the article to a better title. Rilak (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The phrase just means anything that is really fast. No references are given which establish this as a specific class of CPUs, most likely because no such class exists. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How did you conclude what "speed demon" means in the context of CPUs? How did you conclude that the article has no references? The article has two references at the time of your comment. Both of them define what a speed demon is, give some details as to what the philosophy is about, and provide examples of speed demon CPUs. Your entire argument does not appear to be evidence based. You appear to be just asserting what you believe is the case without even bothering to read the article or the references provided. And as I have said before, we don't call fast (high performance) CPUs "speed demons". Journalists might, but they are not authoritative on matters concerning computer design. Rilak (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Reckid[edit]

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

Disc jockey might survive db-a7, but I can find only Myspace references and the like. No verifiable sources, nothing on his new film career. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadManCF (talk • contribs) 01:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: A7. Toddst1 (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. -WarthogDemon 03:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pennsylvania State University. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State University Police[edit]

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

Unnotable university police department. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this information would be best placed in the article on penn state.RadManCF (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pennsylvania State University, where a line or two regarding the police would be appropriate. Them From Space 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to University Park, Pennsylvania where the police are already mentioned. TerriersFan (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. University police are not inherently notable, and sources are likely to be of the "police arrrested Sam Student for DWI" variety, but some of the information would be useful for our readers, in the main article. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per award nominations found. Epbr123 (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keeani Lei[edit]

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

No independent coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that it passes PORNBIO. The sources seem okay to me, as they're all interviews with Ms. Lei. Tabercil (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominations list has been added, meets WP:PORNBIO #2.--Ttsush (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additional info found by Ttsush; while the source given for the 2009 nomination is rather poor, I do find it on my copy of the AVN nomination PDF. Tabercil (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although some of the "keep" opinions are facetious, notably that by Glenridge, there is insufficient consensus to determine that coverage of this proposal is insufficient to make it notable. Perhaps a renomination is in order some time after the Copenhagen conference. Sandstein 06:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Environment Organisation[edit]

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

A non-notable proposed organization that has been in the planning stages since at least 1999 [21]. Appears to fail WP:ORG ttonyb (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Per nom and per reasons stated in my PROD nomination (WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOAP). Regardless of whether or not the world could benefit from such an organization, it does not yet exist so it can't be notable and it's process of creation (or lack thereof) is not yet noteworthy enough for inclusion on that basis. WP should describe things that do exist, not things that should exist, regardless of how noble the intentions. 7 01:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that this article fails WP:ORG. I do think that the article should make it more clear that this is only a proposed organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadManCF (talk • contribs) 01:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been given more serious references and external links since.The fact that the institution is at the official proposition stage also clarified. Thanks for feedback. --cesarharada (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a serious proposal that merits encyclopedia coverage, ther are plenty of reliable sources, and there is rather too much material to be covered comfortably in any other article I've considered (Merkel, Sarkozy, the Copenhagen conference article). --TS 08:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this point, there are no sources which establish notability. All current references in the article talk about a Global Environment Organisation, but none of them talk about the Global Environment Organisation. Titles of references include "Sarkozy calls for a global organization on the environment" and "Why we need a World Environment Organization". So, there is currently no "Global Environment Organisation", nor is there a solid, verifiable plan to create one. There may be a global movement towards creating an international organization focused on environmental issues, but there is no evidence that it will be called the "Global Environment Organisation". WP:CRYSTAL is clear on the inclusion of speculation and future events. SnottyWong talk 13:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A careful merge and redirect to United Nations Environment Programme could be feasible. SnottyWong talk 13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If people are questioning whether a serious proposal raised by several European leaders is "notable", perhaps the usefulness of the term "notability" should be reconsidered. The subject certainly does merit an article. --TS 14:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – So there is no further confusion, in the context of this discussion the term notability refers to notability as defined by Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're referring to. "Notability" is a guideline, not policy, a fact that many people forget. The occasional exception, I should think, applies to even the most draconian interpretation of "notability", where we're discussing a proposal widely discussed by heads of state, prime ministers and foreign secretaries. And if it doesn't then the "notability" guideline should be ignored. --TS 21:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I believe rules are made to be broken; however, this proposed organization has not been shown to have been discussed by heads of state. The discussion of a general overseeing Global Environment Organisation by heads of state might be notable as a separate article, but this article is about a specific non-existent organization. ttonyb (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the organization obviously does not yet exist, the amount of international discussion and commentary on the creation of such an organization makes it notable enough for an article, in my opinion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is supposed to be about global environmental organizations in general (as opposed to a specific organization called the Global Environment Organization), shouldn't it discuss the various various existing international environmental organizations? SnottyWong talk 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The article is essentially speculative and misleading - there hasn't been any sort of concrete proposal, much less a serious organization. The article makes it sound like an advanced proposal, which it is not - at this point, it exists purely in terms of punditry and speculation, and has yet to become coherent. It is unclear that it ever will. Ray^Talk 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't matter if this organization exists or not, do you care about our future? About the future of life, humanity and nature? THEN LET THE ARTICLE LIVE! User:Glenridge. —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment – How does this meet the criteria in WP:ORG? ttonyb (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per 7, SnottyWong, RayAYang and nom. - James xeno (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that this article is referring to the subject of talks happening RIGHT NOW in Copenhagen should be enough to confirm its notability - at least for the duration of COP15. People will be interested when the topic is raised and should at least have a reference point. I'm planning on watching what live broadcasts I can and I'll update the page accordingly. --Sterlingpearce (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC) — Sterlingpearce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – I'll ask again, how does this meet the criteria in WP:ORG?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs)

Comment - Sterlingpearce, tell your sockpuppetmaster that notability is not temporary. SnottyWong talk 12:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As my own "sockpuppetmaster", I would believe that if a topic is notable at one time, that cultural relevance would persist into the future. I would equate it to an upcoming album title... while the official name of the future "Global Environment Organization" may change, the tracks have already been recorded, so to speak. Sterlingpearce (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC) — Sterlingpearce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – However, just saying there should be an album (or in this case an organization) is not notable. ttonyb (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ...Even if the organization is proposed and called for by the people intent on creating it? Sarkozy is in Copenhagen now pledging money to revamp the current spending on environmental issues. If a GEO isn't announced in talks this week, I have no problem ceding to the proposed deletion. Sterlingpearce (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC) — Sterlingpearce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Sterlingpearce, do you realize that your justification is a textbook case of WP:CRYSTAL? How about this instead: we delete the article, and if the GEO is announced in talks at Copenhagen (or at any other point in the future), then we'll re-create the article. That's how WP works. Oh, and if you want to explain why you created this account solely for the purpose of commenting on this AfD, but somehow simultaneously you're not a sockpuppet, I'd be interested to hear how that works. SnottyWong talk 22:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't even figure out why you (or maybe a few of you, but it seems likely only one) are insisting on calling this GEO. Some of the sources suggest it would be a WEO. In any case it doesn't seem likely you are going to be able to predict the name of any entity that is created as a result of the Copenhagen Summit. Beach drifter (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Snotty, I'd venture that the discussion of my alleged sockpuppetry is not relevant to this discussion, so please stop. Also, Drifter, it does seem likely that the organization wouldn't be called GEO, as they already produce a document called the "Global Environment Outlook" with the acronym GEO and that would just get confusing. As noted in the WP:CRYSTAL so eloquently pointed out by Snottywong, if the current references in the article are not deemed sufficient, then the decision for deletion has already been made. My only hope was to present information about the transition that seems about to occur between UNEP and the "hypothetical" organization that will replace it. Sterlingpearce (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC) — Sterlingpearce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Now, now, children. (As I once said to a CEO and a teacher at a committee meeting...) GEO or WEO - it ain't there yet. Peridon (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice WP:CRYSTAL. What the organisation is to be about is irrelevant. It does not exist, and its creation has not been agreed. 'Calls for' rather than 'director appointed' put it under CRYSTAL. (BTW I was a conservationist and environmentalist before the term environmentalist came into most people's vocabulary.) When the ink is dry on the paper, and they're arguing about where the office is to be, try again. When the office is up and running, then OK. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Lee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant independent coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Lucy Lee doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO then it's broken. Polarpanda (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK Delete, fame is not the same as notability. Polarpanda (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pornographic actress. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you look? Polarpanda (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can pass the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep She passes WP:GNG based on coverage at AVN (just do a search on her name). Including the current reference in the article, there are at least 2 more AVN articles that discuss Lee specifically, though not in extreme depth. I think part of the problem is, as with any current pornographic actress, the signal to noise ratio is just awful. Add to that a common name and it's even worse. Can we assume based on the coverage at AVN that more, deeper coverage exists elsewhere, just that a dedicated or knowledgeable enough editor hasn't gone a-searching yet? I'm not sure. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current AVN reference in the article is basically an interview, so doesn't meet the "independent of the subject" part of WP:GNG. This is the nearest thing I can find to passing WP:GNG, but it's quite trivial. Some of the AVN references are about a different Lucy Lee. Epbr123 (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's a review of one of her movies which discusses her in some depth (though not extreme). This AVN article, while a relatively brief mention, provides some useful information. I guess it also goes without saying that, if we could use him, Luke Ford would be a tremendous source for this subject. Anyway, my point is that I think there's at least there's evidence to suggest notability, if not evidence that clearly satisfies the guidelines. But that's just my opinion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That "review" is from a retail site, and therefore is neither reliable nor counting toward notability. The AVN piece really isn't significant, and looks to be at least partly sourced from a company press release. It does say something about her standing in the industry that her contract was terminated in January and the leading trade mag didn't bother to report it until June. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that we're dealing at least partially with an issue of signal to noise ratio rather than an actual absence of notability. Given the nature of pornography and the internet, there are going to be overall fewer sources, those sources will be harder to find, and many of them will have the additional goal of commercial success. We aren't going to find peer-reviewed journals, for instance. And as far as I can tell, none of the relevant magazines are indexed and available through services such as LexisNexis. To put it succinctly, I fear that this subject may have coverage that simply isn't being checked because none of the participants in this discussion has access to the relevant material. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that is true as well. I'll add what little I've found later tonight perhaps. I understand the point about AVN having a store presently (I don't know if that's always been true?), although I don't know if that necessarily bars citing them. Fangoria has Amazon associate links, but I don't know that that should bar them from being cited regarding horror movies. They do dole out good and bad reviews after all, they don't profit more from the sales of the good ones than the bad ones; if in addition to selling things all they did was praise everything, that would be a bigger problem. Шизомби (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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