< 10 December	12 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 redirect to E-Century Publishing Corporation. The lengthy keep arguments weren't based on policy, and are SPAs. Fences&Windows 03:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Genetics[edit]

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

No third-party sources to confirm notability of a new journal published by a nonnotable e-publisher. - Altenmann >t 23:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Consider re-establishing later, but this journal does not even exist yet. The first issue is scheduled for publication in January 2010. --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete , and I would suggest by SNOW. It would take truly exceptional circumstances for a journal in the planning stages to be notable. I tend to regard articles like this as possible G11 Speedies for promotional. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete, G11~~ I agree with DGG. --Crusio (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following DGG's argument at the AfD for the publisher: Merge with E-Century_Publishing_Corporation and redirect for now. --Crusio (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , Reasons: 1. This article is closely related to another outstanding article---Molecular Epidemiology that was contributed by the same user. It has been in Wikipedia for about half a year, and the article seems having been edited/improved by a reputable Wikipedia Editor at the time when it was enclopidiaed. Therefore, it should not be deleted simply because someone who may know nothing about the Science and scientific publication said that this article is not "notable". The high quality work like this should be respected to encourage more high quality contributions like this. 2. Looking into the journal itself, yes, I agree, it has published only the first issue. However, the quality of this issue can easily beat many journals that have existed for many years. It will be easily indexed in PubMed, PMC and other major indexes in my opinion. If we can let this article stay here for almost half a year when it might has no any published papers, why cannot we give it another year while we has clearly seen a great journal is already coming? This will show our respect to the quality scientist/contributor and show the respect to Wikipedia own editors who have been contributing their time and effort in this great cause. If this journal is not indexed in major databases by then, I will fully support to delete. 3. A quick study on the Editorial Board of this journal, I can see that this is one of the greatest group of scientists in the field and they are working on the same cause like most of us here---spreading the Freedom of our human kind knowledge...which should be supported in turn by WikipediaOpenAccessforScience (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep PLEASE! - As a Molecular Epidemiologist I stumbled upon this entry myself recently and the associated Wikipedia entry and I was delighted that finally we were going to have a formal home for our speciality. Until now we didn't, the nearest thing we had was a book dating back to 1993! Also while the first issue is scheduled for a launch in Jan 2010, it is already fully available online and in fairness to the Editors and Publishers, even before an official issue is finalised, all completed articles become immediately available, something which only some but not all journals do but which makes for an excellent rapid dissemination route. I agree with one respondent, there are a number of academic journals out there (publishing for profit too which this doesn't and I believe mitigates against the "promotional" issue raised by one responder) which do not appear to have as high a calibre editorial board or articles from what has already been on offer. I can see no harm in letting this sit for a while and letting it prove its worth since 6 months is actually not a long time in the development of any journal, particularly like this one where it seems that the journal is setting itself up without any significant financial backing and thus is reliant on extra work being put in by the Editors. Indeed, as a serving member of a small number of other Editorial boards I appreciate the difficulty of getting a new journal off the ground from scratch, particularly a broad spectrum one where the Editors-in-Chief usually have never interacted previously yet need to combine and work to a common aim. This already seems to be working very well with the assembly of nearly 100 Editors which is no small achievement, particularly when everyone is already hugely overloaded, they obviously see the merit in the initiative. As far as similarlity to a different WIKI entry on Molecular Epidemiology - I also see no problem there, I imagine the intention was to provide a general article to explain the topic to general readers without the Journal trying to take credit for this too. If the Journal had tried this then some people might have viewed this as disrespectful to the original founders and pioneers of this field and this would may have become an issue. In this context the journal links make sense in directing more interested academic reading. In short, please keep it, I feel our field seriously needed this. Let the journal prove its worth and if in 12 months it has failed to thrive (which would be a pity) then take it down. At the moment the retention of the current entry may serve to help to development of what could be a new leading journal which could facilitate major discoveries in the future - how bad can that be! Wikipedia grew from nothing, this journal is now trying to do the same. In the interim, lecturers and teachers of aspiring molecular epidemiologists now finally have somewhere to direct their students in terms of reading and as a reinforcement of the recognition of their chosen speciality which more established researchers will also embrace. I would humbly ask for some patience on this, time will tell --MunsterExile (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC) — MunsterExile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please understand that wikipedia has the rule that importance of a topic must be confirmed by independent reliable sources, see WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:CITE rules. I am happy to believe that this is an important journal, or going to be. But unfortunately we cannot take a word of a wikipedia editor for that. - Altenmann >t 17:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with E-Century_Publishing_Corporation and redirect for now. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:00, 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. Thanks to Patrick for the reasoned comments about the site. Deletion seems to have consensus, as the arguments to keep are based on the usefulness of the site and it being cited briefly in the press. The deletion of this article has no bearing on whether RPGFan is a reliable source. Fences&Windows 03:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RPGFan[edit]

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

Does not appear notable per WP:WEB, could not find any sources to support it. Seems little more than a fansite for RPGs in general. Tagged for notability and sources since April 08. Rehevkor ✉ 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only source I can find of potential notability is Gamerankings, as RPGfan is described by them as a "quality site", and their reviews are included in their metarating system. Unsure if this is enough to pass notability requirements however. Link to source: rpgfan statistics on Gamerankings. They list RPGfan as having done 654 reviews which are used in calculating various metaratings which sounds like a decent amount. Just thought I would throw this find in here, hope it helps. --Taelus (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep with some thought over the gamerankings usage. It could be interpreted to allow RPGFan to pass Web notability criteria 3. Additionally, on balance, it doesn't really seem to be harmful and may benefit others, so in this borderline case I would lean over towards keep. Either way, it is definately more than just a fansite, as CNET recognise it for their metarating. --Taelus (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe Gamerankings holds any editorial oversight over the site. For that matter I don't see any evidence of any oversight. The "company" behind it was apparently created just to legitimise the website and doesn't seem to exist on anything but paper. Rehevkor ✉ 14:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this site used a RS here? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Used as a source, yes, but reliable? I don't know for sure, but I don't believe so. There's a discussion here about it but it doesn't seem to come to any solid conclusions for reliability. And as such the reliability has not been conformed or rejected per Wikipedia:VG/RS. Saying that, I'm not sure how that's relevant to notability issues. Rehevkor ✉ 02:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ionno. I figured that since Wiki uses them as a source and GameRankings uses them as a source it would be notable enough for its own article here. It's also been around for ages and is pretty popular and well known... so eh. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their legitimacy as a source here is in doubt (reading through FAC archives I see it come in question quite a lot, and I have let to see it remain in a passed article), which I suppose supersedes Gameranking's opinion? I wonder who wrote "quality site" anyway, hardly detailed.. Rehevkor ✉ 14:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have found a few places like Wired that cite RPGFan (mentioning it in passing), but no actual coverage of the site. I see nothing that meets the criteria at WP:WEB. -- Atama頭 21:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All,

This is Patrick Gann, one of the senior staff at RPGFan. I'm not going to vote "keep" or "delete" for obvious reasons. I'd just like to share some things to help you all make your decisions.

Regarding coverage of RPGFan from other sources:

A few major sites have "acknowledged" us, by sourcing etc. Atama noted the Wired source. When we are cited for a news source, it is usually as a translation service. Our lead news writer, Chris Winkler, is a German native who also speaks English and Japanese fluently. He's on top of Japanese-language news, and as a result, RPGFan can occasionally come out and be the first English-language source of Japanese game news. Sites like Joystiq (see: http://playstation.joystiq.com/category/riviera/ or http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/09/nintendo-power-ffiv-ds-coming-in-july/), Kotaku and 1Up occasionally use our news stories (credited or uncredited) for translation from Japanese to English, or just because we were "on the ball."

As far as "site coverage," the largest thing I know of is an interview that some very small site did about me and the RPGFan Soundtracks section. See: http://www.ffomake.com/pgannint1.htm

Our site has also been quoted in trailers and on the back of box art for games. In particular, see: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/visceral-action-demons-souls/55696 @ 0:57 ~ 1:00 ... we are the third site quoted, directly after Gamespot and Eurogamer.

My semi-philosophical, semi-pragmatic thought here: if the requirement for something on Wikipedia *to have its own article* is that another source has some lengthy content ABOUT that something, then indeed, RPGFan probably shouldn't have its own Wiki article. Now, whether or not it's a reputable source for *other articles* is another question, with its own set of standards, correct? Since I don't know where else to put it, I'll go into that side of things and address some questions comments from other Wiki users here, if that's alright.

Regarding "editorial oversight" -- this is largely done internally, though there are some external restrictions that apply as well. To clear this up, the company/business behind RPGFan (Cerberus Media Group) does exist largely on paper. But it is a business. It is comprised of current and former RPGFan staff, mostly those who have worked in the development/PR roles for the site. I am not a part of CMG. But I do know that they handle all financial aspects of the site. CMG is "for-profit," which means it pays taxes. It collects ad revenue and uses that revenue to pay server fees and sometimes help reimburse for special occasions, such as if a staff member attends a convention (E3, GDC, etc). While the company CMG is "for profit," the entire staff of RPGFan remains unpaid. In place of payment are "perks" -- the free games that come at retail release, or sometimes in advance, from game publishers and/or 3rd-party PR groups, with the implicit understanding that those games will receive a review.

Most games that come to us have what the gaming press calls an "embargo date." This goes for full reviews, and also for "hands-on previews" if a game is sent in advance. While some publications tend to break those dates (in the same way a GameStop might break a "street date" for a game's release), RPGFan has rigidly held to those dates. In this sense, there is an external factor over *when* a review might go up. That's not necessarily content control, but it is a type of control.

As far as internal control goes, we do have designated copy-editors within the staff, and all news and reviews are checked for both grammatical errors and factual errors before posts. Also, if a review's text doesn't seem to match the numerical ratings, the copy-editors can challenge a reviewer on what's been written versus the scores given. In the last four years or so, we've actually developed a fairly robust internal editorial oversight program. But again, it's all done by volunteers; not sure if that's a problem.

Finally, our site does a pretty hefty amount of niche/import coverage. There are whole wikipedia articles that probably couldn't exist as much more than a stub without RPGFan's contributions. For example, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_the_Final_Fantasy_series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ys:_The_Oath_in_Felghana

Many of the taken-for-granted (unsourced) statements in those articles can be found sourced at RPGFan, and many of the other sites sourced have relied on RPGFan (credited or not) for information.

Some speculation as to why RPGFan is often called into question when an article is being nominated for Featured Article status. First, we have the word "Fan" in our name, suggesting an entirely fan-based site, one that might lack objectivity. Second, the site still exists in a Web 1.0 format, which generally calls into question the health and value of the site compared to many other sites (interestingly, our friends/rivals at RPGamer are in the exact same predicament).

However, I think the biggest reason RPGFan's legitimacy gets called into question when an article is getting considered for Featured Article status, is that (almost as a rule) the games that make FA status are popular games. That means that many very popular, already-known-to-be-legitimate sources have said tons of things about the game already. At that point, you might argue that RPGFan's voice in the matter is extraneous at best, and harmful at worst (if you cannot claim objectivity or legitimacy for the site). So, for safety's sake, the link to RPGFan for a Featured Article gets cut. Much as I'd like to change this, I think all we can do is continue to grow as a site, get some Web 2.0 features running, and perhaps bring some transparency to the workings of CMG. Advice from Wiki members on this point would be much appreciated.

All that said, I do think RPGFan ought to be considered a legitimate news source when there aren't many other outlets covering a game. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar_tonelico

We probably have the most complete coverage of this game among the six sites that were linked for the score. We have full information and reviews for the game itself, as well as its soundtracks (the game puts a strong emphasis on music, particularly female vocals with a fictional/created language). Games like these may not be as popular, and thus may not get full coverage at a site like GameSpot. And there are plenty of games that are far smaller in terms of development cost, sales, and popularity than Ar tonelico. For things like this, where this is no "larger" source to turn to for scores or quotes for reception, I would think that RPGFan is still a safe choice.

Sorry for the wall of text, hope this helps in consideration of the site, not just for the potential deletion of RPGFan as its own page on Wikipedia, but also for using RPGFan as a source for game-related Wikipedia articles.

Thank you, Patrick Gann Tonelico00 (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have time to read the whole response or give it a full reply, but wish to bring up Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Discography_of_Final_Fantasy_VII/archive1 which mentions the website. Will give a proper reply when I can. Rehevkor ✉ 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As an ashamed knowledge editor: See WP:OVERCOME as the core of this discussion and why the majority of the email above means nothing for Wikipedia purposes. Follow that up with a a browse of WP:ENN. Notability is not based on merely passive references or a statement from a member of a "good" website. See WP:GARAGE for a somewhat humorous but often accurate way to deal with claims of extremely limited mention. Having one review related to one's site as specific review or resource ... also not notable. If I wanted to get really picky I'd question how an average review score can be 81% (credibility as a source) or the many reasons as to how Gamerankings would never qualify as a sole hook. Mentions in an FA candidate page might make it "of interest", but that's far below standards for notability. Most especially, notability cannot be based on "most complete coverage" of something in a review on one Wikipedia page. That's unreasonable by Wikipedia standards anyway, as we cannot base ourselves as a claim to notability or reliability. The VG project is niche already, and an RPG website is even more niche, and the fact it even states that Ar tonelico exists means it's unfathomably niche. This just makes the bar even higher on giving reliable references. cont. ♪ daTheisen (talk)

Take that point of view and the "big picture". A site that is trying distinguish notability by a large review and some archived reviews elsewhere or even had a large dedicated reader base-- is that notable? From an encyclopedic standard? From a global perspective? This is an odd nomination because deeper understand of the topic is unlikely to be found much, so since I have but few policy to cite I'll give a WP:DUCK test. Gut feeling? I can't possibly see what place in an encyclopedia this has. Would be worth an unlinked part of any lists of have of review/fan sites. If this were only a Wikipedia of video game content or RPG content? Might be a different story. However, all articles on Wikipedia must meet our most basic standards in WP:GNG, WP:RS and the like, even if the feel like they'd be a great fit inside their tiny niche. I can't say it's a bad site, nor am I saying anything sour of it... I've even visited several times I can recall in the past... but "Notable" per Wikipedia? Sorry. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not every "news site" can be notable per Wikipedia standards. I won't fight it as a secondary source for parts of articles that now source it, but it fails WP:WEB, and WP:GNG. I would say for WP:VG's purposes it can be used as a secondary source to back up a primary source, but it does not meet Wikipedia criteria for an article. --Teancum (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google Scholar returns a couple of brief mentions. SharkD Talk 23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those hits are merely passing mentions, and nothing to satisfy WP:WEB. --Teancum (talk) 20:21, 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 Speedy deleted G11 KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Constantinescu[edit]

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

I've nominated this here because it plausibly asserts notability, even though to me it looks like a borderline blatant hoax. Checking up, although this seems to be a fairly common Romanian name I can't find anything at all that would connect him to "Litez-Out," "Out of Order," or anything else the article claims. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. This does not assert any form of notability per Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly with the lack of sources. AlexGWU (talk) 02:01, 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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Employer branding[edit]

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

Reads like an entry-level freshman marketing paper, with a side effort to sell the reader on the value of "employer branding" strategy. Lengthy quotes strung together create the worst of both plagiarism and original research. Orange Mike | Talk 23:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or ~~Possible move to Wiktionary~~: Poor article; not encylopedic. Edited so many times beyond recognition, it never seems to be a stable article. ~~Possibly deserves a one line entry in Wiktionary.~~ Mattg82 (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (ec) Realize that this article has existed since 2004, in many different versions. There may be a halfway-decent version somewhere in the article history. It does seem to be a viable topic; see [1], [2], [3], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 23:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, heavy cleanup - verifiable topic, pretty much referenced, although chaotic text. "Poor article" not a reason for deletion - we could have deleted half wikipedia on this criterion. Attributed lengthy quotes is exact opposite to plagiarism. - Altenmann >t 23:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 'Poor article' was perhaps a hasty OTT comment. Looking at the article history further, there seems to a non-consensus as to what Employer branding means, which is maybe a reason why the article has become a bunch of quotes. Mattg82 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please note that this is a remnant of some kind of college project, and there's a lot of information about the project and the other articles on one of the numerous talkpages involved. I wish I could find that talkpage, but I haven't been able to; it was a long time ago. I was in no way involved in that project; the article merely caught my eye and I tried to clean it up. Unfortunately it remained poor, and inappropriate for Wikipedia. It never was encyclopedic, not at the beginning and not now. Bishonen | talk 11:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Bishonen. No logical scope; inherently unlikely to be clearly defined or become an encyclopedic subject. Might indeed be a dicdef as a common term; but do not recommend sending to Wiktionary as this is not a definition either. I reject "verifiable topic" on scope grounds, sorry. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:13, 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. No agreement on whether the coverage for this band meets the notability guidelines. Fences&Windows 03:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telepath (band)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This band fails WP:MUSIC as none of their albums have charted and I can find no significant third-party coverage of them. ArcAngel (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE: If you review archives of Relix Magazine with readership over 300K or Glide Magazine or many other local newspapers you can find significant third party coverage...this thread should not be deleted.Andygregryan (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BAND; references given fail to satisfy our requirements. Relix, for example, uses the word "telepath" or "telepathic" a few times; and the name "Telepath" appears on a couple of band lists; this does not constitute substantial coverage. Being covered by the local smalltown alternative weekly does not constitute substantial coverage by reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage found is sufficient to establish notability, e.g. these: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and there are also smaller mentions and student newspaper articles such as [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].--Michig (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The above links appear to be student newspapers, or otherwise local links. Shadowjams (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether the sources are reliable and whether the coverage is significant. The Post & Courier is local to Charleston, Glide Magazine isn't student/local, The Mountain Times is local to North Carolina, and the Charleston City paper is local to Charleston. The band is from Philadelphia/Ashville. If the only coverage was from their home town, there would be a case for saying that it isn't enough, but local coverage from outside the band's area is a different matter.--Michig (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What Michig said.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:03, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JOrtho[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 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, JForget 23:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete no third-party sources to confirm notability. - Altenmann >t 23:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourceforge download page is not a reference. Miami33139 (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable freeware. Can't find anything in IT publications. Mattg82 (talk) 00:34, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newschool skiing[edit]

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

Delete: In over four years, this article has never had reasonable sourcing nor has it attempted to establish notability. It appears to be a promotional gimmick by and for industry manufacturers and competitors. —EncMstr (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This New York Times article on the topic is very in-depth. Other secondary sources like from the St. Petersburg Times and the Denver Post exist as well [15][16]--Oakshade (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More reliable sources from Vue Weekly, Kelowna.com and the Rutland Herald, discussing a wide range of issues surrounding newschool skiing (a lawsuit between Warren Miller Entertainment and Warren Miller himself over his appearance in a "newschool" film, the inclusion of "newschool" events in the Olympics, and the changing demographics that ski resorts have to cater for, respectively). That said, the article is a mess and probably written mainly by newschool fanboys. "Article hasn't improved in 4 years" is certainly no reason to delete though.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable sources appear to be available. The article should be updated accordingly. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EDITED)Keep and I sees there is new powder snow coming - gonna set up some rails and boxes for jibbing (pun fully intended). I am the person who removed the prod tag and suggested to be in AfD, fully expecting this topic to be kept. Even though, I am unable to provide specific sources (I am a snowboarder, not a skier), just ask any younger snowboarder/skier and they will say it IS notable and it is an important topic. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:05, 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 delete. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 11:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Sami Abugoush[edit]

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

Content must be verifiable. The assertions made here are not. No credible evidence of notability has been presented. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on the above web searches, there seems to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, so the subject doesn't appear to comply the notability requirements. PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above subject Mohammed sami abugoush is important issue in big part in the meddle east i am working on it since i start to write , i can finish adding my information soon but everyday i find more and more to write about i think writing take time , we need to know about famous person in his field some people true pioneer's smart and educated such as the people who write in this site but we dont know about them until someone come forward and write about them , first impression is good but judging subject need more than 100 to reach a fair decisions, lets see how this articl will look like in two weeks

thank to all with my respect and looking forward to hear from you gentleman's —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondexpert (talk • contribs) 21:34, 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, JForget 23:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is a self-promotion and hence conflict of interest. Nonverifiable. The two books on diamond industry must be reasonably notable, but I cannot find them on amazon. - Altenmann >t 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nor can I find the books on WorldCat, or GBooks. The advertisement for his book at [17] has had only 21 views, many probably by people checking this AfD. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete gentleman's if this book is not on amazon or WorldCat because still in publication proses, we can judge this not by what we think but what general people think , this book start to be published this year in the middle east and then around the world for example only lets see where we can find this great book

[18] [19]

this book in every world diamond and jewelry fair such as hong kong, basil,las vagues, Bahrain, Dubai , and every bookshop in Dubai, Cairo , Amman , and so many news papers write about it, if we put things on fairness scale we should give credit for these people who take the time to write , i navigate the Wikipedia daily, i see lots of articles maybe i don't see self-promotion here i see information in that field most of us don't know it , i see honor ship to the writer and thanks for his work , i am sure he do not need self promotion he has been on TV interviews over 37 times i can upload them here , but we are trying to add something worth people time to read. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondexpert (talk • contribs) 08:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete education the public is not the amount of information that is put into book or brain or we learn but undigested all our life ,we must have life building man making character making assimilation of ideas so we can learn from other people culture and civilizations , i can't see self promotions act there , he is not writing about him self , we are writing about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondexpert (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 December 2009
Delete as purely product promotion. Note the extensive gallery of photos designed by the subject. These are clearly photos designed to be used in advertisements. The subject may or may not be notable, but this article is clearly advertising. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not deletethe subject is not promotion at all show me one single example??!! if photos from general people point view is promotions which i disagree , i try to bring his work from him directly due to the copy right issue ,so instead of deleting hole articles post what you think to make it better or try to say the positive side beside what you think its negative , the subject just other people profile ,every note until now didn't prove something logic why should be deleted , its basic information and thats his life or part of it ,its not my job to bring examples from the Wikipedia for articles people think it should be deleted , i always post the positive side and if something need to be fix i do that , i do not judge people simply because i don't know them , i try to know them first then i say the truth about them but i do not ignore or deny there exuberant contribution to humanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondexpert (talk • contribs) 04:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, please. I am an inclusionist, but the this. is. an. advertisement, and it is clear that this guy is as notable as I am (which is to say, not at all). 'Nuff said. Moogwrench (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete until now i don't see logic to what has been said about this page , first they said promotion then advertisement , then what??? i see other reason for this un-logical attack on someone is well known in the middle east and famous figure, as i said put fact's not allegations we do not discuss allegations when someone put facts, if we prove its not what has been said then what will be the issue?? maybe the name is the issue maybe the background??? we all equal under god low we can't just whatever we focus on determine how we feel and act, so rather than jump into conclusions,

we should consider all facts and possibilities and focus on one that will inspire Wikipedia readers and those who we care about. this is not add or promotion or advertisement this is honorable man and we like honor him, we write about killers, murders,kings, writers, journalist,...etc some of them good some bad some ugly , some we know and some we don't if will take notes from people just because they think its promotions without support for there claims in facts or merits,then Wikipedia will be opinion pages about what i think and what you think! Wikipedia built on facts and truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondexpert (talk • contribs) 08:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- do not delete None- logical criticism to this article without, smart discussion, experience evaluation, and factual interpretation of article make me confused to what has been said here . civilized criticism is often informed by basic theory, which is the philosophical discussion and its goals. It look like the above activities are closely related, unified criticisms are not different like we are reading same mind and I hope not what I am feeling, none of the above comment based on fact or they can be theorists.

Wikipedia is a flower grow in our hearts but it’s not a thorn to some group of people who just “think’ Wikipedia should develop love for all ,its way of life , so before we critics each other culture or believe , we should put our actions and feeling on the fairness scale for truth and righteousness. May god bless all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondexpert (talk • contribs) 18:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC) i really don't know how to sign after i finish may someone show me please[reply]

delete. Obviously the self-promoting author does not know the rules of wikipedia. Claims for fame are not supported by verifiable references. Twri (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete

gentleman's its not who is right is this discussions but what is right? on one can judge someone who does no wrong , error ceases to be error when they corrected , freedom of speech here is the right to be wrong gentleman's but not the right to do wrong ,again where is the logic in your words Mr\Mis. Twri??? you said (Obviously the self-promoting author does not know the rules of wikipedia. )is this how we think these days show me what you are talking about, i am getting close to be sure its the name"mohammed" the issue here and the problem since i can't find one single subject from the article you can point at i don't think you even read the article i am sure you just reading the aricle title,maybe its time to have good intentions , if putting obstacles in front of the wagon wheels from what i see i can imagine how is state of minds behind this frightful actions, i create this account under his name and i can't understand how people throw judgments with bases to facts or they didn't even ask , HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S (self-promoting author )LETS NOT PLAY THE GAMES diamondexpert (diamondexpert) —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete we all know negative people will always criticize its funny more than sad ,little talent leads to negative attitude, i guess

its look like every time i read or reread a comment on this article its like reading old classic story we don't see more than what we read before , all whats been written about deletion here is really missing one thing ? talent or maybe experience or both, if Wikipedia is for group of people who live there life under (i think or i guess) then its wasting time talking to them ! its very basic when we read any article and we see references, we understand that someone got some information out of them , but if someone read only title and see "mohammed" the first feeling will negative, its not what is in the article its really the name, i was working on edit the article since 3 weeks and its take time to be done.thanks gentleman's Diamondexpert (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[[diamondexpert|talk]]Diamondexpert (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE WE CAN FIX WHAT IS MISSING OR WRONG BUT WE DONT DELETE INFORMATION OR ARTICLES SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE IS SOME ERRORS. 94.142.39.189 (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)MIKE ZACKOFF94.142.39.189 (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete hi ... i was reading articls on wiki since 3 years ago , i seen alot of good ones , and bad ones , this article is very good if we compare it with others , references are good i know this name i know what he is... and if we need more info. we should sreach the net for more , i vote do not delete. thanks shhina sabreen - DTCC - london 94.142.39.189 (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)shahina94.142.39.189 (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to admin: The above two opinions purporting to be from somebody signing as "MIKE ZACKOFF", and "shhina sabreen" are from the same IP address. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note to admin now its the people who post there opinions , before references , promotions, etc, i guess its when you choose the lesser of two evils we always remember that it is still evil,to settle a disagreement is on the basis of what is right , not who is right, let me ask you "Whpq" did you ever share a computer with anyone or room or apartment? if two people sharing a computer , i am just confuse are we reading opinions or counting computers here , its really poor "Whpq" weather you put up or you just ... , i didnt know the discussion here about ( how many computers, promotions ,self-promoting author, what else??) please lets keep our minds out of the dark past and advice learning makes man humble and perfect, ...try to read and learn nothing , i wish you good luck.

Do not delete.Diamondexpert (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)diamondexpertDiamondexpert (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete a massage to all " god give us the serenity to accept one another with things we cannot change,and he gave us the courage to change things we can , and the wisdam to know the difference" i am not sorry for anyone being ignorant,i am only sorry when someone is educated and act like ignorant. thanks gentleman's Diamondexpert (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)diamondexpertDiamondexpert (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete i will add new info today with references thanksDiamondexpert (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)diamondexpertDiamondexpert (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondexpert (talk • contribs) 06:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An ISBN number for this gentleman's book, "Diamond: The Myth & Truth" is listed in the article as "978-9957-8645-0-7". Good- this gives us something to search on. Except the only places Google can find this ISBN is here, and in a very similar looking article on the Arabic Wikipedia [20]. Amazon doesn't recognize it, The Book Depository doesn't recognize it, and neither do a couple other smaller book sellers. The notability of this gentleman is severely lacking independent of the books, and the books footprint doesn't help the article's case. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, Diamondexpert, you're not helping your cause by repeatedly posting the same thing below every comment. Second, there appears to be nothing verifiable, notable or encyclopaedic about this article or the gentleman who is its subject. HJMitchell You rang? 07:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete thanks gentleman's for time and comments , i am writer and i search books , net , etc. for information if this book is not on amazon or whatever book saller sites, that's not prove book is not out there,i am sure there is thousands of books not on the net,i have 600 book in my library none of them on the net and the writers names not even known for anyone , before i write a word about him i optain original copy of ISBN registration.

THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN REFERENCE NO.IN DEPARTMENT OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY (1381\5\2008) 553,8 MOHAMMED SAMI MOHAMMED ABUGOUSH THE STORY OF DIAMOND STONE ,THE MYTH & TRUTH AMMAN- AUTHOR 2008 DISCREPTION /DIAMOND/GEMSTONES 1381\5\2008.A.R.P( ) ISBN 978-9957-8645-0-7 DEPARTMENT OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY PREPARE INDEX AND CLASSIFICATION'

if this gentlemen is not known in Canada, or china or whatever as you state((( nothing verifiable, notable or encyclopaedic about this article or the gentleman who is its subject)))thats why Wikipedia ask us to create article if its not there. its normal to hear about people for first time even if they are dead 1000 year ago or they still alive,there is lots of unknown people who give humanity something or they did something, if we are searching for references i am sure there is more than 100 about him but we just do couple of clicks and we call that search,i respect both opinion, but how many articles over wiki stating ( this article need references or editing ..etc) and finally your opinion still just opinion and i respect that the fact is there is some references and lots of information we can discuss in the main article, i am sure this article is more important than what we all think, time will prove that , just allow it to be for few month and we will see. allow me to give my respect and my regards to all.diamondexpert--Diamondexpert 10:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)--Diamondexpert 10:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondexpert (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never Say Never Festival[edit]

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

Notability is being drawn into question as Google News seems to find only five hits all from the same website. -Pickbothmanlol- 19:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this festival. Joe Chill (talk) 20:19, 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, JForget 23:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to eb a local festival with only local coverage from a single newspaper -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of winners of the Peabody Mason International Piano Competition[edit]

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

No real reason for this to exist - A short list that duplicates Peabody Mason Concerts#Peabody Mason International Piano Competition created today by the same editor. Prod removed by article creator. noq (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is notable. Perhaps someone could expand it into a useful table with more information about each winner. Racepacket (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - information on winners should be contained in the biographic articles on those winners. There are not enough past winners to write an encyclopedic list article, maybe after another 5 or 10 winners are named, but not now.--RadioFan (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Peabody Mason Concerts. An AfD isn't necessary as this is an editorial decision. I feel that the content is so insignificant that it is better boosting up the main body of the article with it than hiding it under a separate article. There is still a long way to go before this reaches WP:SPINOUT length. If the list becomes a problem in the main article than a stand alone list might be acceptable, but not before. Them From Space

Delete No one doubts the notability of the people or the competition (though references are pretty thin on those pages) but this topic is miles from needing a seperate list article. The scant bit of info is already present om Peabody Mason Concerts and the winners categorized as discussed on the talk page. This seems speedable as it is administrative. Redirect is not necessary as it is not needed as a search term.RadioFan (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while the contest has been on hold, it is returning to an annual event starting in 2010, so the list will grow, and the future winners may not each warrant separate biographical articles. Racepacket (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the contest continues for a few years then a list might be warranted. At the moment and for the foreseeable future the section in the main article will be able to contain them all without overwhelming that page. noq (talk) 21:05, 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, JForget 23:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Add the year information to the main article if it can be properly sourced. Not a usable redirect. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 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, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madison De La Garza[edit]

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

Child actress with only one real role on Desperate Housewives, but I cannot verify that she’s actually been in 27 episodes. Other roles are 2 minor appearances and an uncredited extra. Does not meet WP:GNG. Most search hits/news are about her famous sister (teen actress Demi Lovato) and happen to mention her. Only one mention of her role on DH, and it deals with her weight. Without a famous sister, is she notable? Being related to someone notable does not warrant an entry. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my view, having a credited role on Desperate Housewives for 27 episodes is notable. I note however that WP:ENT speaks of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Agree that having a famous sister does not establish notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkativerata (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I question the accuracy of IMDB saying she's been in 27 episodes because she is definitely a minor character. The list includes almost all episodes in the last 2 seasons. (I can find many examples for other actors in IMDB where the # of episodes is inaccurate.) --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her character was part of an recurring theme with child obesity, so it's not unlikely she appeared in two dozen episodes. See [21], which also mentions an article in US magazine from October 20, 2008. Gimmetrow 01:34, 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, JForget 23:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Had a significant role in a notable TV series, appearing in 20+ episodes over two seasons. Actors with a significant role in one show are typically considered notable, regardless of what WP:ENT may say about "multiple" shows. Gimmetrow 18:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ENT. Doubt IMDB is one wishes, but the show's own episode credits are acceptable for verifying her 28 episodes of Desperate Housewives. That the show and its actors are the center of a large cult following is a further meeting the criteria of WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CASHX[edit]

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

Non-notable software, failing wikipedia policy at WP:N. One of many related products listed at List of sequence alignment software. No evidence of notability in the article and none on the "official" web page. It's hard to search for relevant ghits because the name CashX is very popular, but this search reveals only 81 hits, and even so many of them are irrelevant. andy (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 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, JForget 23:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete examination of the sources reveal the same information repeated several times on university research blogs, we must reject that as conferring notability. It also shows as being used in a research paper, but the research was not about the software, this also does not confer notability. I could be convinced that this has some notability for being unique or important in the very specialized research field, but that is not in the article now. To find sources for this would be such a specialized search, the WP:BURDEN to properly source it must belong to those who wrote it. Miami33139 (talk) 00:25, 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 delete. Kevin (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Shaw[edit]

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

Not notable. Children of notable people are not automatically notable. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. SnottyWong talk 13:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. It seems, with his acting and directing, he's made it on his own....okay, with help--but he still seems notable. Just needs more sourcing and some expansion. Vartanza (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does he still seem notable after reading Wikipedia's guidelines on the notability of actors? SnottyWong talk 19:23, 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, JForget 22:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see him being mentioned but no substantial coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added sources to this, and his Broadway credit, but they just don't seem to add up to notability. No awards or other recognitions to be found. We also don't have guidelines for TV directors/producers that would give us any reason to think he could have coverage. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:57, 8 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) 22:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Countries[edit]

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

There's no source for "solid colors" as a category and there's nothing that couldn't be included in the Flags article, or something similar Cynof Gavuf 12:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SnottyWong talk 12:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The topic is covered under [22] KeptSouth (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not significant enough to warrant a separate article. Someidiot (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Should be a category at the most. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:22, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Webb[edit]

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

Not notable Cynof Gavuf 11:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? I'm not aware of any racing guidelines. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or send to article incubator. The article clearly isn't ready for the spotlights. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this apparently reliable source and there have been a few articles about the subject in his home-town local newspaper. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm surprised that this page is up because of notability. What about its lack of content? The user who created this article and another user continually create articles of drivers that lack content that explains their notability like this one, and then expect other editors like myself to expand on them, and they are never stopped from doing this. What is not clear from the article is that he has been signed to drive in the British Formula Three Championship [23] in 2010, a series that is more notable. I'll see if I can expand the article, as if it is deleted it will only get created again within the next year or so. - mspete93 13:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've solved the issue of a lack of content by expanding the article. - mspete93 14:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per User:MotorsportPete93. Cs-wolves (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per mspete. The article's quality has been greatly improved, and there are many articles on motorsport drivers in junior formulae at this level.--Midgrid (talk) 15:58, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella City[edit]

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

The mall appears to have a long history, but has been tagged for no references for almost three years. In that amount of time, one would think that something would come up, so this apparently fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added 3. No other argument for deletion been presented, so I guess this AFD is now moot. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cited, obvious and good claims to notability. Rebecca (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that refs have been added, that requirement is met and there's a solid basis for expansion and improvement of the article. 17:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.90.87 (talk)
Strong Keep. The article seems on the right track. MaxForce (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No one ever cares for the mall articles, but sending them to AFD just to dredge up sources is the wrong way to go. This is historical as one of the first dead malls, and sources have been added. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:39, 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 no consensus, default to keep.

Idaho Central Credit Union[edit]

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

Not notable Cynof Gavuf 11:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the largest credit union in Idaho, so is worth including. It's obviously not a big company, but no review of the Idaho financial services industry could ignore it. RomanSpa (talk) 16:16, 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, JForget 22:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. With 75,000 members and $700 million in assets, this credit union is certainly notable. Lots of hits on the news archive search as well. Gobonobo ^T ^C 04:25, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5N Plus Inc.[edit]

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

No indication that it meets WP:N Cynof Gavuf 11:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in WP:RS [24] meets WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. An established business, I found some non-press-release coverage.[25][26] Article does need trimming for PoV. While this is a tech business, it makes tangible goods in its own facilities. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:23, 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, JForget 22:40, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cwcheat[edit]

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

non-notable homebrew software for the PlayStation Portable; unsourced; easily merged into PlayStation Portable homebrew; not something suitable for an encyclopedia; article was deleted from the Japanese Wikipedia three times in the past year for the same reasons -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, this article will never meet WP:RS, as the only sites which describe the piece of software are things such as blogs. It is unlikely that there would be reliable sources on Cwcheat, since it is unsigned code for the PSP, and thus developed for a limited audience, namely those within the PSP homebrew scene. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though merge if deemed necessary. Thanks! Fin©™ 21:51, 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, JForget 22:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to be verifiable through reliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 21:17, 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 redirect to Dell XPS. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Dimension Xps R400[edit]

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

Seems to be an article about someone's computer ("This Computer was Made In June 25, 1998."). Insufficient notability of this specific model of Dell computer outside of the Dell Dimension article which already exists. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing that can be merged into the Dimension article. It's just one PC in a very long series of PC's, and isn't individually notable. SMC (talk) 10:59, 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, JForget 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Dell XPS. Mattg82 (talk) 23:54, 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 Venetian Snares. Merge was suggested, but I'm going to close as redirect as there seems to be little material to be merged. Anyone wanting to merge material may do so, discussing it on the talk page of the target. Fences&Windows 03:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subvert![edit]

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

Extremely rare cassette album that was self released. Nothing online about it, nor in print. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. I say either delete or merge with an appropriate article. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 03:48, 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, JForget 22:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main artist's article - there are several others too, such as Spells (album). --Jubilee♫clipman 23:30, 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 delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lamento -Beyond the Void-[edit]

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

Anime of questionable notability, Google only lists messageboard chat and deviantart pages for it, was not able to find any reliable sources. Has previously been PROD-ded. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 03:29, 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, JForget 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - could check web search using Japanese title ラメントビヨンドザヴォイド ? [27] To me, they largely look like commercial hits. Marasmusine (talk) 20:32, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IllFonic[edit]

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

Fails notability for companies re: WP:ORG, no significant coverage by secondary sources cited or found. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 00:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Chuckiesdad, just noticed you marked this article for deletion. I was trying to create the page as I have found a few different wikipedia pages that mentioned IllFonic but hasn't linked to it. I updated these links. Please do not delete if you search for the company you will find it is a legitimate company. Thanks! Chuckb00/Talk/Contribs

Delete Unless reliable objective sources can be added. The author has also started related articles Ghetto Golf and Charles Brungardt, which without substantial coverage also appear promotional and may constitute conflict of interest. 99.155.206.57 (talk) 05:12, 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, JForget 22:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional, the company lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, and indeed most of this is unverifiable. Fences&Windows 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable; probably qualifies under promotional anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:45, 19 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) 22:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Democracy ( UK )[edit]

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

I can't find any press coverage for this organisation; it fails WP:ORG. Deprodded by the article creator, who has stated that they are editing on behalf of the English Democrats, one of the members of this group. Fences&Windows 22:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - it claims at least to be an alliance of existing groups, some or all of which have soundly established Wikipedia articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not verifiable, possible hoax. There are six tiny political parties named here: all have websites as follows: Christian Party ([28]),English Democrats ([29]), Jury Team ([30]),Popular Alliance ([31]), UK First Party ([32]), Veritas ([33]). I can find nothing about this alliance on any of these. Sussexonian (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt it's a hoax, as the phone number on the website is the English Democrat's number and the website is registered to a prominent member of the English Democrats. It might be wishful thinking on his part, as there's been no publicity even on blogs of the meetings. I found a single blog that mentioned it. Fences&Windows 02:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my suspicions when they said it was founded last month. Zero hits on GNews. In the event that this alliance of six small parties is verified, Alliance for Democracy can have a page when third-party sources start referring to them under this banner, and not before. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:23, 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. ff m 18:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles J. Fisher[edit]

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

Biography of non-notable local "historian for hire" who helps people get their homes listed as historic buildings; please see the additional discussion on the article's talk page. --Glenfarclas (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Cynof Gavuf 11:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fisher is an activist who has preserved many historic buildings, often without remuneration. For example, he recognized the Purviance Residence as an early Schindler design and nominated it as a monument simply because the structure is historic and should be spared. The Cultural Affairs department rejected the application, but ultimately community support for saving the historic residence spurred Eric Garcetti to intercede on behalf of the Purviance Residence, which was declared June 21, 2006. There are numerous similar examples where Charlie has worked on his own to preserve historic structures, or when he has donated his efforts to apartment residents' groups or to neighborhood councils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigratia (talk • contribs) 05:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, Outside of work for the city, the subject of the article doesn't appear to be notable per WP:BIO. That being said, there is no reason why the creator of the article, cannot place it in their sandbox, and continue to work on it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Optigan13 (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds significant to me. There are some historian authors and historic site photographers who are so prolific that they certainly seem very notable to me. I am not aware of there being articles about any of them yet, but this guy having >100 is a lot, and I think it could be worthwhile to create articles about more of them. I just mentioned this AFD and the general issue at wt:HSITES. doncram (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from article author Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_is_not_a_matter_of_opinion^[1]: "...please keep in mind that notability is not a matter of opinion. Arguments for keeping the article should be supported by reasonable evidence such as reliable sources, not whatever you believe."

The article contains 54 references from the Los Angeles Times, the City of Los Angeles, and numerous other papers. Deletion would be contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Those in favor of deletion, please provide feedback. Wikigratia (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from nominator: No, those are pretty much all minutes of town commission meetings and the like. You've got one citation to an actual LA Times article, but that just paraphrases Fisher talking about someone else in an article about a historic trolley station whose preservation Fisher apparently had nothing whatsoever to do with. I'm sorry, but I don't think any of that shows notability at all. --Glenfarclas (talk) 08:21, 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, JForget 22:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from article author Thank you, JForget, for relisting. I look forward to the continuing discussion.
Reply regarding the Huron Substation The Los Angeles Times article describes the Huron Substation, which Fisher and his group the Highland Park Heritage Trust successfully nominated to be preserved as City of Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument #404 in 1988. Hence, you are absolutely incorrect in your assertion that Fisher "had nothing whatsoever to do with" the Huron Substation. ^[2]
Reply regarding citations Many of the citations I list are indeed minutes and agendas in the City of Los Angeles, which is the second largest city in the U.S. This reliable secondary source offers numerous independent examples that support my argument that Fisher is notable primarily due to his work protecting historic Los Angeles.
Notability, according to Wikipedia Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people), "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Fisher is unique in that he has successfully nominated over 100 historic buildings as monuments.Wikigratia (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He's been mentioned in the LA Times maybe dozens of times for his preservation efforts.[34] The article should not list all his efforts as this is not a directory. Fences&Windows 03:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - you don't document notability by cumulating many dozens of passing mentions, none of which even vaguely qualify as substantial coverage. Working to save a notable building does not thereby make you notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:47, 19 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 ICQ. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Licq[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete me neither Cynof Gavuf 11:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I say play it safe and redirect to ICQ, as this is allegedly a clone of ICQ and anyone looking for Licq will get what they need from ICQ. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 16:46, 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, JForget 22:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article Miami33139 (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is no AfD banner on the article. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ICQ, since it's on the list. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:19, 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. Sandstein 07:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Indonesian embassy bioterrorism hoax[edit]

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

This was a flash-in-the-pan news event, which received a small amount of coverage in the Australian press in June 2005 and hasn't been mentioned since other than one report a year later:[35]. Not notable per WP:EVENT. Anthrax hoaxes are so common that virtually none of them are individually notable. Fences&Windows 22:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge, the event deserves mention on WP; though if we begin making a veritable list at Anthrax hoax, I think that would be just as good. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just turned the Anthrax hoaxes article from an unsourced list that was up for deletion into a sourced proper article. Please please please don't revert it into an indiscriminate list of every anthrax hoax - there are hundreds and hundreds of them. Fences&Windows 02:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it may seem run of the mill not worth keeping a record from the perspective of particular wikipedia guidelines - however the issue as it was in the particular context - for either Australian or Indonesian relations - it is a valid item Satu Suro 00:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is notable to Australia-Indonesia relations, could it be merged there? Fences&Windows 02:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - not sure about this one. The article is missing mention of the context - from memory it was at the height of the Schapelle Corby trial and other strains in the Indo-Australian relationship. --Merbabu (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Fences - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't "keep per Fences", I'm nominating it for deletion and arguing that it is non-notable. I asked a question above about merging, not an argument. Try again, but using complete sentences to explain yourself this time. Fences&Windows 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, press coverage demonstrates notability. Everyking (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, press coverage alone doesn't demonstrate notability, see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Just asserting that a minor amount of coverage in the local press shows notability is tiresome without some explanation of your position. Fences&Windows 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My position is that a substantial level of press coverage demonstrates notability in all cases. I don't feel there's anything else for me to explain. Everyking (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another minor anthrax hoax with brief local coverage; WP:NOTNEWS applies here. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:49, 19 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot The Robot[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)

I see nothing in the relevent google searches for this band's name that resembles a reliable source, as defined by WP:RS. I also see no evidence of notability as defined by WP:GNG or WP:BAND. As such, it does not appear this band meets the minimum requirements for an article, so this article should probably be deleted. Jayron32 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as the "notability tagger". ukexpat (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see plenty relevant. The band has numerous pages ans presences on sites such as MySpace, PureVolume, Nuzic, Unsigned.com, OurStage.com, Musicreview.co.za, Amazon.com, iTunes, numerous online lyric databases, Youtube.com, eventful.com, last.fm, mp3.com, Shrednews.tumblr.com, napster.com, rhapsody.com, imeem.com, emiestreet.com, myxer.com, facebook.com, twitter, and more. To say that there is nothing relvant when searching this band's name on google is IRRELEVANT. Wikipedia is here to provide anyone with information on just about anything. Just because a band isnt a top 10 artist is no reason to flag a wiki entry for deletion. If all bands fit into your idealistic idea of what a band truly is, the only musicians wikipedia would recognize would be The Beatles and Michael Jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.128.35 (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest that you read WP:BAND and WP:RS for guidance as to notability of bands for Wikipedia purposes and reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish otability -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! No reliable sources eh? Hmmmm. Weird how shred news, one of the leading indie artist and indie review sites is listed as a reference, and look! If you go over to shred news, there it is! PS: Someone alerted RTR to your crusade to take them off of wikipedia, and theyve alerted their myspace as well as their twitter accounts. Youre gonna have 20,000 very angry RTR fans on yo ass!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.128.35 (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not terribly interested in deleting the article over the alternative, which is providing real reliable sources as defined by the page Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability. Fans of the band are free to provide those sources, but 20000 people coming by and adding nothing to the discussion aside from "plz don't delete my favorite band. They are sooper cool" is likely to have no effect. This is not personal, if you have links to reliable sources, please provide them, and we'll reevaluate this situation. --Jayron32 18:09, 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. Miacek's argument that "The lack of sources is not a good argument in case of some online phenomena" is incompatible with the core policy WP:V, which applies to all subjects. Sandstein 22:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian Wikipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An original research with close to none about a deleted weird wikipedia version in a "Siberian language", which was, as his creator eventually confessed, together with the "language" itself, one huge hoax, which duped wikimedia gurus for two years despite vocal protests of Russophone wikicommunity againts this abomination. (A fun to read this wikidrama, BTW, two years later: it is amazing how a single dedicated person, with a little help from a couple Russophobes can shrink heads of many supposedly smart people.) There is nothing to write about this project. The reliable sorces are close to none. The previous nomination was ended as "kept" due to concerted efforts of the "Eastern European mailing list", who gave no real arguments whatsoever. The only extra refs found by Colchicum during the previous nom were a couple or articles on regional Russian websites by journalists also duped by Zolotaryov. In summary , this article deserves to be kept only of someone writes a newspaper article "Wikihoax of the Century". - Altenmann >t 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The article contains at least one ref from a respected person (blog), Paul A. Goble, who took Zolotaryov seriously. But in view of Zolotaryov's confession that the Siberian language was a hoax, the article cannot be a reliable source, especially keeping in mind that there is no way to write a neutral and truthful article basing on wikipedia rules. - Altenmann >t 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —- Altenmann >t 22:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable wiki-drama. No reliable sources (I don't think one half-credible Russian news source will suffice, and blogs are not reliable sources regardless). LokiiT (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And where are the 'reliable sources' for, say, Lithuanian Wikipedia or Russian Wikipedia? Is the lack of dead-tree sources an argument here? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a hoax site was created and deleted doesn't meet wikipedia's criteria for notability. If it did, we would be able to do a little better in the sources department. Speaking of which, I'm positive we could find more than enough reliable sources to verify the notability of the Russian and Lithuanian wikipedias. However this is obviously not necessary, just as sourcing the fact that "water is wet" would not be necessary, since you can simply go there and observe for yourself the existence and notability of those wikis. LokiiT (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ou are mistaken. "Water is wet" does noit need reference, but you can easily find it. - Altenmann >t 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since it was not a real project, and we don't have sources which describe what it actually was, the article would fail to verifiably correct article. References from meta discussions are insufficient. Xuz (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia and permprot against moves or editing. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really can't see what's the problem with that article. Is someone (unfoundedly) bashful because a hoax could survive so long as a Wikipedia edition? That the language is a hoax does not mean the article on that hoax should be deleted, does it?
There are few sources available concerning this online thingy but where are the sources for other (minor) Wikipedias? They all deserve an article, I think.
The 'Siberian language' edition of Wikipedia was a bundle that I would have voted for deletion, of course, yet it seems to deserve a mention in a number of Wikipedias (see iw links), and should have a place here in English Wikipedia, too. The lack of sources is not a good argument in case of some online phenomena, cf Russian Wikipedia, Macedonian Wikipedia. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I explained what is the problem with the article: no sources to make it correct. There is even no sources to prove that it was deleted. I am sure you are aware that wikis, including wikipedia, are not admissible sources for our articles. I would see no problem with existence of this article, just as we have other articles about wikipedia related scandals, but it is just nonnnotable. - Altenmann >t 22:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources—no article. That simple.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:03, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
Keep. As I said in the first AfD, the noted analyst of Russian and Eurasian affairs Paul A. Goble discusses Siberian Wikipedia in his blog. Blogs are an acceptable source if written by an established expert in the field, and the topic is in the area of his expertise. Even if it was a hoax and Goble was misled, it makes no difference since hoaxes can also be notable, see List of hoaxes. --Martin (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can one be an expert in the area of a fake language? This so-called "Siberian language" is hardly a matter of "Russian and Eurasian affairs" (which is what Goble's expertise is). I don't see how this blog qualifies as a source, and since no other reliable sources are available, the hoax cannot be considered notable; as per our own notability standards. A relevant blog in this case would be one of a person of some renown who studies the phenomenon of artificial and fake languages. Goble is hardly such a person. Just a thought.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:21, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
delete - the subject is a nonnotable hoax, which did not find adequate coverage in any media. (that someone was duped does not count). Dzied Bulbash (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wikipedia space or delete. The hoax clearly does not pass the threshold for the mainspace notability. On the other hand for wikipedians the history is quite interesting and useful. Thus, the article IMHO should be moved to wikipedia space and expanded there (we do not have to obey WP:RS outside the mainspace) Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Siberian Wikipedia was covered by Russian media. It should be also restored in Wikipedia because its deletion was organized by a flash mob from ru_wiki. A couple of ru_wiki users posted invitations to vote against Siberian Wikipedia. It was a very interesting and unique project. SA ru (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was an interesting project "how low can you go"; how long can you troll and abuse wikipedia. Russian media is not an expert in linguistics: it happily ate what zolotaryov fed them. Now it is known it was a hoax, and as such the project has no notability. - Altenmann >t 06:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does the project being a hoax (presumably) relate to the absence of its notability? Regardless of whether you like/dislike the idea, it was noted by Russian media (for example, here). Isn't that notability? SA ru (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: It should be also restored in Wikipedia because its deletion was organized by a flash mob from ru_wiki. A couple of ru_wiki users posted invitations to vote against Siberian Wikipedia
I disagree. There is no such thing as Siberian Russian language, some of the words were just coined/given a new meaning by Zolotaryov.
RE: How does the project being a hoax (presumably) relate to the absence of its notability? Regardless of whether you like/dislike the idea, it was noted by Russian media
I agree. Hoax does not imply non-notability. After all, if it were such a non-notable case, why all those iw articles?.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there is no such thing as Siberian language. There is such a thing. Siberian language was invented by Yaroslav Zolotarev, and he pretty successfully implemented it in his project. He also had a number of followers. The mob from ru_wiki wanted to kill the project simply because they claimed that nobody in Russia speaks this language. But this is not the point. Why cannot Zolotarev develop a wiki-project using the language he created? SA ru (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "real" Siberian language, to have a wikipedia in it. There are thousands conlangs of 2-4 enthusiasts, Zolotaryov's no better. Timurite (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Siberian language" is not a real one, but an artificial language created by Yaroslav Zolotarev. There are no other notable "Siberian languages" supported by "2-4 enthusiasts". Do I understand correctly that you suggest that minorities should be discriminated, in this case the minority of "Russiphobis enthusiasts" (your comment below)? SA ru (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. undue weight to a deleted project of a single Russiphobis enthusiast. Less impact than Klingon Wikipedia. Almost none balanced coverage of the subject in media. Timurite (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I worked with Yaroslav Zolotarev on a wiki-project, and I can assure you that he is not a "Russipobis enthusiast". As far as no "balanced" coverage in the media, in actuality Siberian language was sufficiently covered in the media. For example: 1, 2, 3. It was also covered in numerous blogs and wiki-encyclopedias. SA ru (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, allow me, a "moskalska svoloch" in sib-wiki terminology, to disbelieve you. Good to know that you are one of these trolls. -<: Timurite (talk) 16:45, 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 redirect to Algoma University#Student life. There's no sourced material, so nothing to merge. Consensus is to delete, and a redirect can be left behind. Fences&Windows 03:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algoma University Students' Union[edit]

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

Are students unions inherently notable? I don't think the world needs to know about their new leather furniture Polarpanda (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This is borderline not notable. The key here I believe is sources. The source provided is a small local newspaper with what appears to be a small staff and little editorial support. Because the source is so weak and the type of subject is not usually included in the encyclopedia, I feel it would need multiple sources or a stronger single sources to prove notability other than in that local community. Does it meet the letter of the policy? - yes, but not the spirit. The article almost sabotages itself with the information on its leather chairs which makes me wonder if that is the most notable thing about the subject. Even the 'controversy' is questionable on even being notable. Generally if I hire someone and they don't perform to the level of my expectations, I call them names too. At the very most, the 'controversy' section could be added to the Matthew Good article.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —PDCook (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this is not notable. Even if the union is mentioned in different sources (which it does not seem to be), it is still just a run-of-the-mill union. Existence does not equal notability. PDCook (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Algoma University. Any content worth saving can go there, and a redirect should be left behind. tedder (talk) 20:06, 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, JForget 21:47, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baroness Egg Attack (the game)[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)

Declined A3. This does, however, fall under the scope of WP:MADEUP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the editor who tagged the article for speedy deletion. It's unverifiable original research that someone has posted as a lark. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 21:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted. It is not a 'lark', as arrogantly noted above. Instead it is actually a game, as anyone who ACTUALLY attends a decent university would see.

This is ridiculous to delete the game. It springs from but has no relevance to the Daily Express article and is a well known and well played game during this Christmas season at Cambridge. It would be unacceptable to delete the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baroness_Egg_Attack_(the_game)#So_silly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeet1234567891011 (talk • contribs)

You may want to reconsider your statement on the talk page. You are not citing a reliable source. Wikipedia operates based on verifiability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Existance is not the minimum requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. Lots of things exist. Only things that meet the minimum requirements spelled out at WP:GNG get articles. This does not appear to qualify. --Jayron32 22:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major cultural issue at the only MAJOR university in the UK. It is obviously therefore important enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeet1234567891011 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. I was the editor who originally prodded this article, and fully endorse the nomination. --Glenfarclas (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is about time for me to step in. My name is Jonathan Holmes, I am Dean of Chapel at Queens' College, in the University of Cambridge. This game has been going on for a very long time. To delete the article would be ridiculous and in fact vandalism in itself. Do not do so please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeet1234567891011 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I too will verify the truth of this game. I have played it upon many an occasion and have enjoyed the fun!!! Murray —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.48.174 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) — 86.23.48.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Reads like a hoax. No references, nothing on Google, and the two "external links" provided do not (on searching the sites) have any informatiaon relevant to this alleged game.--MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

How many Fellows and Profs at Cambridge do we require to verify this? I am Professort Lord John Eatwell, President of Queens' College. This does exist. Please feel free to contact me, via post, to discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeet1234567891011 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Isn't it strange how many high powered faculty members from Cambridge have taken the time to come here to post comments in support of this undergraduate game! Personally, I am the Queen of England, and I have my doubts about these folks. In any case, what we need is not anonymous testimonials here, but WP:V verification from third party sources - and none has been provided. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Later - LOL! Good work on the part of whoever exposed all these faculty members as the same user! So I confess, I am NOT the Queen of England - any more than Skeet is the Dean of Chapel and President of the College.--MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

I've gone ahead and placed strikethroughs on the various improper comments. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to use Wikipedia so I just clicked "edit" this page. I'm an undergraduate at Cambridge and can confirm that such a game exists, regardless of it's ridiculousness or silliness. If you failed to publish anything about Cambridge that is ridiculous or silly you would lose half the relevant pages. I can't prove who I am, but I should appear as a different user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.30.34 (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a shame that you people make up these rules. Sure, we didn't know the rules when we added contributions, but it's not that HARD to understand that people from a COLLEGE at a University might use the same IP address. The fact that the Dean (Skeet) was still signed in, is not something I understood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.14.132 (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC) — 86.150.14.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's as may be, but the issue here is this: Are there news articles, published accounts, or other reliable sources that talk about the game and its importance? If so, then I'd happily keep the article. If not, then - even if the game exists and is a boatload of fun and has many many followers - it can't have an article under our rules. I suspect that, if the game were as widespread as is indicated, that a news article of some sort would have surfaced to document the fact. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing verifiability in rather spectacular fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NFT. And a trout to the user poorly attempting to impersonate the powers that be at the university. I somehow doubt that Professort (sic) Lord John Eatwell would put coming on WP to defend this student tomfoolery high on his to do list..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 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. Keep Turks in Chile. Cirt (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turks in Latin America[edit]

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

More minority groups which have not been written about non-trivially by any scholars or journalists. Part of a series of boilerplate stubs all created by the same editor based on a population statistics table. There's no actual articles that can be written here.

The idea that there is any significant Turkish community anywhere in Latin America (like the unsourced claims of 30,000 in Venezuela and 50,000 in Brazil) is based on misunderstanding --- "Turcos" is an old local misnomer for Christian Arab immigrants from Syria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) who arrived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Neither their descendants nor any modern scholarly sources identify them as Turks, except in quotation-marks. (See, for example, Arab Chileans and Palestinian community in Chile, or [36][37], which discuss the issues more thoroughly). cab (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the only source provided suggests that these groups are very small, hence the lack of coverage elsewhere. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Turks in Chile and delete the other articles. I think it would be best to rename the Turks in Latin America article to Turks in the Americas and include North America were they have a stronger presence. This would therefore be an article similar to that of Turks in Europe. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be trying to merge a bunch of little disconnected non-notable national topics together to write regional-level articles. It's appropriate to write regional-level migration articles when scholars or journalists have actually analysed the issue at that level, as in Caucasus Germans or Koreans in the Arab world. But are there any scholars or journalists who have discussed "Turks in the Americas" as a whole? Seems to me the answer is no. Turkish Canadians and Turkish Americans are notable populations, but no reliable sources analyse them together, let alone in concert with alleged Turkish migrants in the rest of the Americas. So any attempt by Wikipedians to write such an article inevitably falls into original research. cab (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Kemal Karpat is known for his work on Turks in the Americas (not just those in the North). The majority of the Ottoman migration to the Americas were not ethnic Turks but nonetheless they still had a presence which should not be ignored. I think it would be best to just change it to Turks in the Americas in order to avoid all these silly articles being created.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i wouldnt mind user Deutsch-Turkce-English's suggestion. But Keep Turks in Chile. Not all Arabs were called Turks because the majority were actually christians not muslims. And if anything, Arab Chileans and Palestinian community in Chile should be merged together.Turco85 (Talk) 12:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, the term "Turcos" was also used erroneously for referring to Arab Christians. And the sources in the Turks in Chile article don't even discuss Turks. Every single time that islamonline article says "Turks", they put it in quotation marks, indicating they don't even know whether these people were actually of Turkish ethnicity. Joshua Project is not a reliable source either; they are just a Christian evangelical group who take data from primary sources like national censuses, and grossly misinterpret it. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 7#Blanking of links. cab (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Joshua Project is a whole load of nonsense. But we cannot say that they were not Turks either. One of the references in the article (a video in fact) does show that there is a Turkish community in Chile. So lets keep this article and delete the others. The Turks in Latin America can be moved to Turks in the Americas. What do we all think? Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - batch of articles without solid sources or evidence of notability of topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:52, 19 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 Nuclear. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclearity[edit]

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

The article only describes what the topic is about, not what it is or where it relates to standard methods in mathematics. If properly explained, and the name is adequately sourced, I'll withdraw the nomination. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#A1 (insufficient context) was declined. Although I don't agree with the reasoning, I'm not going to reinstate the tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I explained on Arthur Rubin's Talk page, I declined the speedy deletion because I think the article provides sufficient context to survive A1, but I think the article should be deleted unless a knowledgeable editor can add a basic statement of what the subject is (i.e., "Nuclearity is the property of ..."). (Well, as basic as possible, given the relatively obscure subject matter.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to nuclear space. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC) In light of comments by User:Mathsci, I withdraw this suggestion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to nuclear space. The article is so vague about what it's supposed to be about that it's hard for me to tell if it's close to the intent of the article creator, but in general the names of articles on properties should be the property plus the noun if applies to rather than an abstracted version of the property (which is likely to be a neologism). For example Bounded set rather than boundedness, connected space rather than connectivity, etc. So a redirect to 'nuclear something' is warranted and 'nuclear space' seems as good a candidate as any.--RDBury (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename article to Nuclear C* algebra and rewrite properly. The definition of a nuclear C* algebra A is that there is only one C* tensor norm on $A\otimes B$ for any other C* algebra B, namely the spatial norm obtained by taking faithful representations on Hilbert spaces. The theory of nuclear spaces does not contain the theory of nuclear C* algebras in any way at all, contrary to what has been stated above by User:Sławomir Biały. The subject is linked to that of operator spaces and the more general class of exact C* algebras by the work of Eberhard Kirchberg; it has important applications in K-theory. As Alain Connes showed, a separable C* algebra is nuclear iff the von Neumann algebra generated by any representation is hyperfinite, a result which was a corollary of his his classification of injective factors for which he won the Fields medal in 1982. This major result is not recorded in the article. The originator of the article, User:Henry Delforn, whom I have come across before, does not seem to know the subject very well. A proper article could certainly be written on the subject. The classification of (simple) nuclear C* algebras is described in detail in the book [38] of Mikael Roerdam in the Springer series "Encyclopedia of Mathematical Sciences". So I agree with Arthur Rubin that the article should be renamed to nuclear C* algebra and completely rewritten with a proper set of sources (several books and sets of lecture notes). The Roerdam book also contains references to lecture notes on exact C* algebras by collaborators of Kirchberg. (A C* algebra A is exact if the spatial tensor product of it with a short exact sequence of C* algebras remains exact. There is an equivalent characterization in terms of operator spaces.) The subject is also covered in the encyclopedic three volume Springer series of Masamichi Takesaki. Mathsci (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic really is valid then the operative question is whether there is anything in the current article that can be salvaged or is it better to just start from scratch. In the former case, a rename would be appropriate. In the latter then a delete would be appropriate since you can always start the new article with the correct name.--RDBury (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there are indeed two separate concepts of nuclearity then this page should become a disambiguation page pointing to Nuclear space and Nuclear C* algebra. Quotient group (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My friend User:R.e.b. has in fact just started a new article Nuclear C* algebra using some of my suggestions. (It might also be useful to add the books of Effros & Ruan and Pisier on operator spaces.) A disambiguation page should also contain a reference to nuclear operator, sometimes used instead of the more common term trace class operator in the context of Hilbert spaces. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 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, JForget 21:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nuclear, a pre-existing disambiguation page. I have added the three occurrences of "nuclear" in mathematics, all of which are related to tensor products in functional analysis: Nuclear space, Nuclear operator and Nuclear C*-algebra. The current article serves no purpose at all. Mathsci (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this seems to be the only possible outcome at present (because of the above discussion, the creation of Nuclear C*-algebra and the changes to Nuclear), I have changed Nuclearity to a redirect to Nuclear. Mathsci (talk) 11:46, 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 delete G3 blatant hoax Ϣere SpielChequers 22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Van Hamont[edit]

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

I can find pretty much no evidence that this person exists at all, let alone that he's a popular actor or played in anything called Harry Poppins. I'd guess this is a hoax; the article was speedy-deleted twice before. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy it again, salt No attempt to write a sourced article that would survive our fundamental criteria after two previous deletions? This should be removed and protected from recreation. Miami33139 (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it wasn't an ((A7)) nor was it written by the same account as the earlier speedy deleted articles. But looking at the previous vandalism by the author I've now deleted this as ((G3)), and warned the author about his previous edit. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:24, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave and Jelly[edit]

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

notability, possible nonsense This article does not state the notability of its subject, and borders on patent nonsense.RadManCF (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC) sorry this looks messy. I'm new at this.RadManCF (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see where they make any assertion of notability. Is a speedy candidate. Shadowjams (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Schoolboy prank. No assertion (and no possibility) of notability. Their claim to fame seems to be that they "disrupt lessons." Also pretty close to nonsense. What does "born on 21/09" and "born on 21/10" mean? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:15, 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 delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cloobing[edit]

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

Contested prod; rationale was: "Dictionary-type definition of a non-notable neologism". Suggest deletion as an unreferenced neologism per WP:NEO/WP:NFT. Muchness (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - I was the original prodder. LadyofShalott 20:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silliness. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Life of Riley, pure silliness. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a neologism and it hasn't really taken off, and even if it did, it would still be a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced; no assertion of notability; definition. (If the first two of these points are addressed, I'll change my non-vote to transwiki.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and propose to close per WP:SNOW Wikipedia is not a place for non-standard English. --I dream of horses (T) @ 17:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete cloobing does not exist right? Well if it does the article needs a source to prove it Venustas 12 (talk) 02:24, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using Water[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a textbook or a how-to guide. Couldn't think of a CSD category to put this in. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTHOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:NOTHOWTO. Completely unreferenced too, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for how-to guides. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. What a strange article. I'm half tempted to suggest we just redirect it as a plausible search term for Water conservation. --Glenfarclas (talk) 22:33, 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 List of The Game characters. Consensus has formed thanks to Jclemens' suggestion. All the character articles can be merged to the yet-to-be-created List of The Game characters. Fences&Windows 03:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Barnett[edit]

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

Delete or redirect - Since redirecting these article hasn't seemed to stick, I'm bringing 'em all here for an official consensus. There are no independent sources supporting the notability of the character(s) per WP:FICTION. I think whatever is mentioned in this article can be easily added to the characters' description in the main article. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons. Pinkadelica ^♣ 20:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Game (U.S. TV series) . No assertion of notability substantiated by citations to multiple third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge substantially. I see no good reason for saying the redirect didnt stick when there was no attempt to discuss it of the talk p. for the article or the redirect target, which is required by BRD, and is the way to get a consensus on challenged edits. That was not a good faith attempt to redirect, because it did not even try to follow the very basic policy of getting consensus for disputed edits. But better here than a revert war. These seem to be the major characters in the series, and the series a major one. Even so, I would have no difficult about merging and redirecting to a proper combination article, but the article they were redirected to is The Game (U.S. TV series); this article contains one paragraph on the first character, and one or two sentences about the others, in a section marked "cast" ; this seems to me an attempt to extend the film wikiProjects destructive guidelines which do not have general consensus onto another medium. The general consensus on fiction is unsettled, but almost everyone seem to think that characters as such deserve a separate section or sometimes an article, and that major characters require some degree of more extensive treatment--and that this should extend to all media. The lack of consensus is whether there should or should not be separate articles, and this could be settled very easily by some random process, which would be better than a 3 year discussion that has never come to a conclusion. I do not know if I can speak for all those who want to be relatively inclusive on fiction, but I hope they would all accept combination articles if they contained full content. Destructive merges or redirects such as this are inappropriate and will destroy all consensus. At present, the only way of preventing such radically improper editing (editing without consensus at the article, for good measure) is to keep separate articles. AfD can do that, though it does not have the power to enforce standards of merges. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect, I was not the one who originally redirected the articles (save for "Latasha "Tasha" Mack" because it was created after "Tasha Mack") with no consensus. I happen to agree with the redirects because of my original rationale and reverted them back once after an IP seemingly undid the changes of a few redirects the original redirecting editor made (sans an edit summary) to these and a few other articles. I brought all the articles here once what appears to be another unrelated editor did the exact same thing in an effort to gain a consensus to avoid this mess every few days. The talk pages do work two ways. Pinkadelica ^♣ 01:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you weren't the first. WP:BRD says that if someone make a bold change like a redirect, & it's reverted, it should be discussed & consensus obtained before making the same change again. I am perfectly willing to agree that you did it thinking it was the best solution and that it might prove acceptable. Coming here instead of continuing reverting isn't as good as discussion would have been, but it is much better than edit warring & I commend you for doing so. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has anyone suggested merging to form a List of The Game characters article? List of characters from notable fictional franchises seem to be the preferred way to deal with marginally notable characters. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Notable characters for a notable show. Too much information to fit in one main article, so no reason not to split it up like this. Merging it would lead to destruction of valid information some would find interesting to read. And those who aren't interested in it, won't find their way to these articles anyway. Dream Focus 06:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Jclemens's suggestion actually makes the most sense. Some of the content in the articles is valid and notable, but I still don't see the reason for separate articles for each character. I think creating a "List of" article is possibly the best solution. Pinkadelica ^♣ 07:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevent information to List of The Game characters. Not notable enough to justify separate article, and more helpful for information to be displayed in a list. Quantpole (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Game characters. Edward321 (talk) 02:56, 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 no consensus. No agreement whether this field is notable. Fences&Windows 04:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Mills Field[edit]

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

Delete nothing to indicate that this baseball field, home to an amateur league team, is notable. If this passes muster, nearly every high school stadium and municipal playing fields, little league diamonds, etc. deserves an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The stadium is home to a franchise of the New England Collegiate Baseball League, a notable collegiate summer baseball league. As a wood-bat league with players of collegiate age, the league's talent level is comparable to professional Rookie-level leagues, such as the Appalachian League. The league's talent-level aside, every stadium of the league has a Wikipedia entry. Most importantly, the article has multiple third party sources from two separate established newspapers of the region. Quoting WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This article's reliable secondary sources mean that it satisfies the General Notability Guideline. Kithira (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Appalachian League is professional, while this league is amateur. That's a big difference. Also, the fact that the other fields have pages doesn't mean this one should be kept. If anything, those pages should go through AfD as well. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. There's nothing to suggest that this field is notable, and being named after a kid who was murdered doesn't establish notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The bit about the field's name is not meant to establish notability. The independent secondary sources already do that. Kithira (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every stadium in the New England College Baseball League has an article. I realize someone has already said "So what?", but the fact that such effort has already been put in to creating the articles and the navigation boxes indicates that this is a league of notability to numerous editors and readers. Don't worry, keeping this article will not send Wikipedia down the route of covering "every Little League field". Perhaps you were just thrown by the stadium's name?--Ken Gallager (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Ken Gallager Alex (talk) 23:18, 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 delete. Without a single source we can't keep this, useful or not. If someone can create a biography of Lewis based on significant coverage in reliable sources, please do so, but this isn't it. Fences&Windows 04:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Lewis (writer, filmmaker)[edit]

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

Delete unreferenced BLP of a marginally notable or non notable person, with so little context it is hardly an encyclopedic biography. We don't even know when and where he was born, and other basics one expects to see in a biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. I see a string of fringe docs and not much else. Hairhorn (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. PDCook (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The very consistency of this person's work, combined with its clearly propagandistic nature, may make a Wiki article useful for researchers. Just sayin'. Rudybowwow (talk) 03:52, 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 delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Future Game[edit]

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

Non notable game. One source, and it's a blog. Zero Google hits aside from Wikipedia article. Teancum (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCRABBLE. Game may become notable in the future after release, but currently is not notable. Not yet listed at major sources/listings, thus suggesting that there is a lack of data. 2011 is a long way off and notability is not yet clear. No prejudice to recreation at a later date if notability is established, such as the game being listed and covered by major sources such as gamefaqs, gamespot, cnet, other news, etc... --Taelus (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above, only reference is to a blog. Also the majority of the article reads like an advertisement. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 18:20, 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) 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Trinians III: The Heist[edit]

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

non notable possible future film, Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:HAMMER WuhWuzDat 19:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. Possibly even speedily as a hoax - I can find no supporting references. I42 (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. I saw this at WP:NPP, and was about to speedy tag it as a hoax. Then I saw the AfD tag. I searched google, and found no relevant hits (except this article). I'm pretty sure it's a hoax, so maybe WP:G3, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails Wp:CRYSTAL. And I can't believe someone's created an article for the follow up for the as yet unreleased new St Trinian's film. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is, you just forgot the apostrophe, as with all school names; the saint is the possessive. Another reason to always be careful about grammar. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete surely a hoax. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. December21st2012Freak (talk) 06:32, 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. Enough for keep, but improve thoase refs by using ((Citation)) - maybe use some browser add ons - Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Tools Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raison oblige theory[edit]

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

Delete reads like an essay, nothing to indicate that this theory is widespread, notable, or otherwise encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree the article needs work, but the term seems to be out there in a few places like here and here and the references given in the article. If someone can fix the article, great; otherwise it ~~should~~ could be userfied or put into the article incuabtor. PDCook (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —PDCook (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I created the article, its my first so I'm sorry that its not congruent with an experienced wiki writing style. I'm still working on it and will be adding to it tomorrow. (a)I will work on the style. (b) This theory is young and as such is undergoing experimentation. The creator of Raison Oblige Theory is currently challenging the evidence of self verification theory but this work is not published yet so I can't talk about it. The work that is published is little known because it needs more substantial evidence to support it's claims. If you are interested you can follow its development over the next few years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesDC (talk • contribs) 17:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, you're almost shooting yourself in the foot here. PDCook (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is, however, work published on it. Therefore, it is not original thought, merely theoretical nor unsupported. My reference to experiments I can't talk about is only to work which I can not mention in the article due to wiki rules. All young theories are undergoing testing, this isn't to say they aren't supported. Even older theories, such as self verification, still undergo testing to this date, despite a lengthy existence. The acceptance of a theory often follows substantial testing and validation processes. Therefore, after only three years of development it is not surprising that Raison Oblige Theory is not widely known about. It is, however, a supported contender to the self verification motive and thus noteworthy in wikipedia.JamesDC (talk)JamesDCJamesDC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

keep - I've changed the style and added more to the article, including most of the references. Any advice on how to further improve the article would be greatly appreciated.JamesDC (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I know enough about the topic to tell you how to improve the article...I can only comment on formatting, layout, references, etc. You could ask someone from Wikiproject psychology to look at it. Regards, PDCook (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am part of the wikiproject psychology, and the self and identity task force. I can ensure you the content is not only valid but an exact, up to date, reflection of works on Raison Oblige Theory and Self Verification Theory. I do not think the article should have been nominated for deletion as the content fully adheres to wiki rules. However, as I said, this is my first article so any advice on formatting, layout and references would be great. I've properly referenced, re-structured and altered some of the content today. What else can be done to make it better? Any help is much appreciated. JamesDC (talk) 14:45, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marseille Indoor Skate Park[edit]

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

Delete nothing to indicate that this skating rink is notable, fails WP:GNG Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Perhaps if someone can find some references I'll change my mind (perhaps). PDCook (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skatepark. Armbrust (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the benefit of redirecting a specific skatepark to the general article on skateparks. PDCook (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no reliable source exist and it has been removed from the Skatepark article. Armbrust (talk) 17:04, 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 18:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symbian Horizon[edit]

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

Delete nothing to indicate that this product is notable, fails WP:GNG Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable software and obvious advertising: ....increase the profitability of delivering applications on the Symbian platform. Symbian Horizon will provide a service that allows developers to write an application once, and publish in dozens of stores worldwide. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wouldn't take it so far as to speedy it, but definitely fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. Looking at the Wikipedia criteria for significance, the vast quantity of secondary sources (including CNET, The Register, Bloomberg) who referred to this software (See http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=symbian+horizon&cf=all&sugg=d&sa=N&lnav=d0&as_ldate=2009&as_hdate=2009&ldrange=2000%2C2007) would indicate to me that the criteria are met. Plus the software was launched in a joint keynote presentation with Jimmy Wales, and is supported by China Mobile, Sony Ericsson, and others freddiegjertsen(talk).
Keep or Merge to Symbian. Do remember to look for sources before nominating or !voting.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. So there's definitely significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, thus it meets the WP:GNG. I think a merge is best as it is integral to Symbian and both articles are short. Fences&Windows 04:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 04:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable peripheral to Symbian; sourced to press releases and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete average product. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Pourganji[edit]

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

Grandiose claims for this Iranian professor cannot be verified. Deprodded by User:Espresso Addict. I normally wouldn't criticize another editor, but Espresso Addict should have brought this hoax-like BLP article to AfD after deprodding it. Abductive (reasoning) 17:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article claims notability in computer science, but there are 0 hits in both GS and WoS. Seems clear-cut. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I can't even find any evidence that this person exists let alone that they have any noteworthy academic accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alefbe (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of course this should be deleted if no sources can be found, but please let's not not assume that the issue is clear-cut. It is quite possible that the reason that no sources have been found so far is due to issues with transliteration. It would be helpful to this discussion if someone could supply the spelling of the subject's name in Persian. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and failed, even searching just by Pourganji, to find anything. If this person can translate, it is remarkable that he has no English internet presence. Abductive (reasoning) 04:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on those who wish to delete an article to bring it to AfD, not on those who wish to keep it. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I think not, only in the case of BLPs. Abductive (reasoning) 04:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If someone can find reliable sources, feel free to re-create. Right now I have no reason to believe that this person exists. — Miym (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. While the person may exist, I doubt the claims made in the article are accurate. Probably a hoax, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search returns 0 hits (the only Google searches I can find are from other wikis which have the same content), possible hoax. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 03:47, 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 Christmas truce. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas 1915 Football Game[edit]

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

There are many reports of football games taking place during unofficial truces between opposing forces in World War 2. These are broadly covered in the Christmas truce article. Zestos (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christmas truce. Note that this was World War 1 not 2. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... My mistake. I can't believe I made such a stupid mistake =P Zestos (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I make 'em all the time. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is separate and specific enough to qualify for its own page, or at least an expansion on the Christmas Truce page. Sockr44e 23:54, 11 December 2009

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christmas truce; Northwestgnome is spot-on with his suggestion - this topic deserves a mention on Wikipedia but NOT as a seperate article. Giant Snowman 19:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Giant Snowman and Northwestgnome. Should have a mention, but not notable enough for its own article. Dana boomer (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It looks like merging is the way to go. Any suggestions on how much of the information from the Football Game article should be put into the truce article? How should we do this? A seperate heading? Or add it to the 'British–German truce' section? Zestos (talk) 00:22, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional City in Need For Speed[edit]

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

Full of original research and unverified claims. Fails WP:GAMETRIVIA. Article has numerous other issues, but most are cleanup related. If consensus is that the article is kept it needs to retitled. Teancum (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Teancum (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the topic is game trivia, and does not meet the notability for inclusion. Perhaps there is a relevant target for a merge, although I am unsure of the informations notability even as a subsection elsewhere. --Taelus (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too trivial for an article. The general facts that the games take place in fictional cities should be mentioned in their articles. No need to combine the information in a new article. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going into a Wp:WAX argument here, but why do we have an article on Liberty City from several GTA games? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should. But at least it is one fictional city, not various ones put together. The information on each city being in its game's article should be enough, I would think.Northwestgnome (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Grand Theft Auto, and Liberty City by extension has notability for changing the way open world games are played. I don't even like GTA, but Liberty City is notable. Although many console gamers know where Liberty City comes from, I doubt many could tell you the names of Need for Speed cities. --Teancum (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If suitable, all of these can be put into the articles on the game's themselves. Also, who's going to search for an article with that title? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 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. No evidence of notability provided, only the article creator opposes deletion. Fences&Windows 04:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Delta Sigma Fraternity, Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested prod, so bringing it here: Local fraternity at one college--no evidence of anything that might be encyclopedic notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are earlier Phi Delta Sigma frats (and possibly sororities), but this one, recently founded and having but a single chapter at UMD, is not notable. I was unable to find a single substantial source for them. Abductive (reasoning) 17:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local fraternity lacking the sources to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added sources to improve notability Rdeyes (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as you are the creator I understand your wish to keep the page but none of the sources provide the necessary mainstream coverage to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 15:38, 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. Upon further review at the DRV, it seems that consensus is to close this as no consensus, default to keep. Therefore I see no need to keep it deleted, as it seems that sources were added to the article post creation of the AFD, and the delete !votes are therefore old. The !keeps are (while not the strongest ever, and some are indeed crap) therefore keep their voice as turning this into no consensus. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 10:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Previous Close)The result was delete. I throughly looked over this discussion, and have come to the opinion that this AFD merits a delete closure. The !vote count is close (discounting the canvassing that was done), but the delete !voters presented much better arguments than the keep !votes. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 14:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odette Krempin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Odette Krempin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article survived a previous AfD owing to general claims of notability. However, it grew into a BLP nightmare and was full of unreferenced claims of all sorts. It was recently stripped of all unreferenced material, i.e. everything, and nothing of note remains. A search for sources was conducted, turning up only a couple marginal news stories about the subject's involvement in a minor beauty pageant controversy. As it stands, there are no reliable sources proving notability. Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . A general lack of Wikipedia reliable sources to support notability for a biography. Off2riorob (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources shows that she is not yet notable, however talented she may be. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really need a policy to prevent keep voters pointing vaguely at google hits as a reason to keep, and providing no help with sourcing an article, showing how it is notable, and maintaining it. At best this is marginally notable, and it has proven a BLP nightmare. Delete as unmaintainable and not worth maintaining.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO - 18 months since last Afd is more than enough time for sources to be found. ukexpat (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - all sizzle and no steak. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are four sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get errors on the first two sources but the rest are ok. It would be great if someone could have this included in a well written translation. Ludlom (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources may be good in theory. That is, IF we had German speaking wikipedians wiling to translate them and write the article, and if those or others were then going to maintain it against BLP violations. However, in the two and a half years that this article has existed we've had no one to maintain it, and it has been a solid mess of POV. Now, unless there's evidence that something is going to change, it is evident that we can't write maintain this article in an acceptable form - and so it is safest to delete it. Willing to be convinced otherwise, but pointing me at a few foreign language sources will not do that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Scott. I have no idea what those sources say, and it is impossible to defend an article against BLP concerns when we have no idea what the sources say. Interested editors have had ample time to put this into proper shape, but it has been a problem instead. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Bridger, and based on my understanding of German (in any event, I've asked some with high-level German translation capability to opine here as well, as they will be best able to judge; if their view conflicts w/mine, I am open to changing my vote). See some more gnewshits here and here. As far as the comments above regarding the use of non-English sources, the relevant core content policy is WP:NONENG, which states in pertinent part: "English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available."--Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:BLP trumps WP:NONENG in this case. If you review the history of this article, all people have done here is added claims, some of them ludicrous and/or libelous, that no English source backs up. When we cleaned them up, we now have one sentence. I'm sorry but we need English sources for contentious BLP additions, of which everything in this article was. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP points to the verifiability content policy. Which is as indicated above. Do you see anything in BLP or in the archived discussions at blp that controverts that clear statement? I didn't. If so, please refer us to it. I see nothing at Wikipedia's core policy that supports your assertion that "we need English sources", and I see language that says we do not need English sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I see your point. I just meant that if someone adds something controversial, I would prefer to have an English source that anyone can verify. Do you feel she is notable enough for an article? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Happily, our fellow editors with strong German language skills have weighed in and done excellent work on the article as well. Yes, IMHO the coverage in RSs is sufficient evidence of notability under wikipedia standards to warrant keeping the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't understand, why my from german into english translated extraction of a television report (Frontal21) has been deleted. No5oo
Comment Someone notified me on my talk page about this article and its nomination for deletion and the need for German sources - I added some content. Hekerui (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work. Kudos. If I were in the habit of giving out barnstars, you would certainly deserve one.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see. There is current German press and TV coverage on her and the alleged charity fraud case, and there is an ongoing AfD on German WP. I suggest to wait and see how things turn out when the dust has settled. -- Matthead Discuß 18:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep because she has had significant coverage centred on her, before and especially since these allegations surfaced. I'd advise not to look to the German Wiki discussion, it's pretty "oblique". Hekerui (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, add ((current)) and wait for more coverage. —j.eng (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good thought. Done.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was also contacted on my talk page. I am leaving my vote as "delete." There is nothing in the article which asserts her importance. WP is not required to follow the German media's lead in declaring someone a celebrity. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that a person be a celebrity in order for their article to be kept.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it seems to be her only importance. Otherwise she seems to be a minor businessperson. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage, not celebrity, would appear to be the applicable test. IMHO. As in: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,and independent of the subject."--Epeefleche (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree that news media in Germany talking about her is a good reason for English language Wikipedia to have an article on her. I also have no reason to think they are reliable or intellectually independent. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should news media in Germany be any less reliable or independent than news media anywhere else? Germany has some of the strictest laws on libel and privacy in the world, so their news media heve to be reliable by law when writing about living people. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. The Deutsche Presse-Agentur is about as reliable as AP, Reuters, and AFP. Also consider checking the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Hekerui (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was more about the kind of reporter who spends his or her time reporting on "celebrities", not about the German news media in general. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to NWG's comment about disliking the use of German news media for English language Wikipedia, that might be reason for NWG to seek to change WP:NONENG, but as long as that is our core content policy we are bound to follow it.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit disappointing that all of the citations are in German, although perhaps with all this news we may get something tomorrow in the English reports, already half is taken up by this new controversy, the article previouely was a BLP problem and was repeatedly attacked, I am interested but still not swayed as yet to move to keep. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I too was asked to check the German sources for reliability and I can attest that all accusations made in this version are sourced by the (reliable) German links:

"Among other charges the honorary consul is accused of holding fake titles and of abusing the logos of alleged sponsors" (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung).
"When asking the Paris UNICEF headquarters about her, ZDF television was told she was unknown there." (Hessischer Rundfunk)
"Yesterday the [Hessian] state parliament's faction of the Green Party demanded from Congolese honorary consul Princess Odette Krempin to explain the whereabouts of donations." (Wiesbadener Kurier)

Anyhow, I don't see any special relevance for this person. The German Wiki is also discussing the corresponding article over there and the majority of reviewing users there is willing to delete it. Krempin may be an honorary consul with accusations of a charity scam but I didn't even know her name until I read my talk page message today, so I for one can't attest any relevant national media coverage or importance. It seems to me this row is rather confined to Hesse yet. De728631 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If all the charges are true, which they might be, then she is a minor con-artist and still not notable for an article in English WP.Northwestgnome (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~.Weak delete I am not convinced that the minor coverage of her as a designer[tt_news=6420&no_cache=1][48] means that she rises above WP:BLP1E (the event being claiming to be ~~honorary consul~~ an ambassador for UNESCO and the fall-out from that). The argument against using non-English sources is wrong by the way, it has been confirmed again and again that subjects in non-English-speaking countries can be written about using non-English sources. Fences&Windows 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (obviously) on the language point. As to BLP1E, there appear to be a number of events at issue. One is the use of charitable donations. A second is whether she is in fact a princess. A third is the misuse of corporate logos. A fourth is whether she is a UNESCO ambassador. They are being discussed at once, but strike me as different events, some of which are rather unrelated to each other.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is honorary consul for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, that's undoubted. The question about the ambassadorship for UNESCO, being a princess etc. is quite different. Hekerui (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convinced, though I see now there was some German press coverage of her prior to the recent scandal, i.e. [49][50] Fences&Windows 02:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment As an American who would have gone to the death camps if Hitler had been successful I personally find this article very offensive. I also think we have enough trash and gossip in English language papers without importing more from Germany. (I am also aware that this comment will probably energize the "keepers" but I felt like saying it anyway.) Have a nice day. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, I imagine a number of us on both sides of the aisle would have gone to the death camps, for any of a number of reasons. And that a number of those who went to the death camps could do a better job translating the article sources than you or I could do. Given that I've just worked hard to save this article from AfD, I don't imagine you are charging me personally with inappropriate POV. That said, I find your comment slightly off-point, but I imagine it will help the closing admin weigh the relevance of your rationale, and the corresponding significance of your vote, and for that I thank you.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In general I have found WP admins somewhat dense on the subject of human feelings and emotions, (and I never expected this article to be deleted). I am not including you in that, I have no idea why you like this article. You might have a perfectly good reason. Thanks for your work on the other article. I never thought you were pro-Nazi. It's just the idea of German reporters attacking an African woman that seems so... like something we don't need on English WP.Northwestgnome (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Godwin's law is still alive and kicking. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what your angle is here, Northwestgnome, but the going consensus seems to be that the German-language sources we've used are considered reliable. I would not even have nominated this article for deletion in its current condition. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources may be "reliable" but they don't say anything about her that asserts notability. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth has anything in the article got to do with Hitler?! Even trying my best to AGF, the comment "It's just the idea of German reporters attacking an African woman that seems so..." seems like racism/xenophopbia to me - are people not allowed to challenge alleged fraud just because they happen to be German? "German" and "Nazi" are not the same thing, and it seriously depresses me to find people still conflating them in 2009! Oscroft (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course everyone has the right to challenge alleged fraud. But that doesn't make a single case of it worthy of an encyclopedia article.Northwestgnome (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (I was also contacted on my talk page.) From the sources given in the article, she is clearly notable, first as a philanthropist, then as an (alleged) criminal. There are multiple sources from some of the most respected German newspapers (broadsheets not tabloids), and the article reflects the sources accurately. BLP doesn't come into this, since there is not a single unsourced negative statement about her in the article. -- Marcika (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP covers other issues than just sourcing. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. But that and blp1E are the only blp concerns that have been raised (and the latter point only by one editor, and I've responded to that comment w/a different view).--Epeefleche (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability seemed to be weak on the last AFD. Is this notability a local/regional or national or international? I never heard of her before since I'm not into fashion. Maybe there might be someone into fasion in Germany, Europe or Africa that might shed some light on her. But the thing I find strange is that the article introduces her as part of a honorary consul whereas the last AFD for this article claims that her notability is as a fashion designer. Kingjeff (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As if a day ago "fashion designer" was still in the first sentence. Its not reflected later in the article. The focus of the more recent articles is away from her fashion designer background, which is I imagine why in copyediting someone moved it out of the lead.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no reports at all in English about this recent news story perhaps she has some little local notability, a bit like the Mayor of my local town has been reported in a few papers but in the wider reality he is not notable. Personally I find the fact that all the support for her notability is in German papers and also in the german language, this is the EN wiki. Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German sources point has been addressed ad nausuem above. In English. With reference to the English language wikipedia core content policy known as WP:NONENG.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, that section is not actually supporting your position, the section is related to an article with one or two foreign language citations and is not to support the position that an article should be cited throughout with foreign language citations. Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just make that up?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, that is not my reading of the policy. If someone has received significant coverage only in foreign-language media, that should be sufficient. Notability aside, of course—we'll have to come to an agreement here about whether she is generally notable. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I read it that way, this is the en wikipedia after all, imo someone notable here is different from the same person being notable in this case the German Language, that situation alone says to me that she is not notable. Off2riorob (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia is written in English; the language of the sources used to verify the articles is irrelevant. Topics notable due to coverage solely in a non-English language are fine for inclusion in Wikipedia. To think otherwise is to argue that English-language texts are more important than non-English texts, simply because this encyclopedia is written in English, which is pretty parochial. What matters is whether sources are reliable and the coverage is significant. Fences&Windows 14:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your opinion fences and window,if the coverage was significant then there would be some english citations, if a subject is really notable as regards this wikipedia you would expect to be able to include citations in English, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fences is not just giving his/her opinion, but actually reflecting what the policy says. Nothing whatsoever in the policy itself reflects Off2's personal POV. If you would like to change policy, the appropriate place to do that would be by discussion at the policy page. Not here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is fences and windows interpretation of the policy that is all the same as my interpretation and anybody else's, please stay away from personal comments, I have already opened a discussion at the policy page made a bold edit to the policy, although it was reverted and I am discussion there hoping to clarify what the position actually is at this time. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my comments were personal. But I stand by my comment. Fence's reflection of the language of the policy is not an interpretation, but a mirror of it. Your "interpretation" lacks any basis whatsoever in the language of the policy. That has been reflected not only by me, buy my another editors on both this page and at the discussion you have opened at the discussion policy page, which I appreciate your both opening and pointing us to. The problem, it strikes me, is not one of German at this point. But of English.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Wow, things have certainly moved on since I originally requested page protection (against the addition of unreferenced allegations of fraud). On the WP:NONENG issue, I agree with what seems to be the emerging consensus - that this being the English language Wikipedia does not mean it can only include subjects that are referenced in English (at least, that's how I understand it, that the issue is not what language someone has been noted in, but whether they are notable in the world in general - it seems like cultural arrogance to insist that people are only worthy of note if they've been written about in English). And so the existence of references in German only (given that they are of high quality) is not a good reason to delete. On notability, I'm not sure, but is "honorary consul of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Frankfurt am Main" not sufficient? Anyway, after reading what everyone else has said, my feeling on the deletion issue is to veer on the side of "keep", but wait a bit longer and see if anything else emerges. Oscroft (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Honorary consul" sounds like a fairly meaningless title to me. As does "princess" in a republic. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as ref'd and our coverage of notable Africans is so unbalanced that afding such articles when they meet our notability requirements is just plain wrong. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 19:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The highly reliable sources now in the article make notability quite clear. Of course sources need not be in English to prove notability, especially in the light of the instant availability of online translation. They might require an assist from human translation for subtle BLP issues, but not really for the much grosser distinction of notability for AfD purposes.John Z (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources prove notability. Dream Focus 02:42, 20 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 Was speedy deleted by a sysop whilst submitting (Non-admin closure) Random Time 16:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean conway[edit]

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

Can't find any sources for this filmmaker - unable to establish notablity. Unreferenced Random Time 16:32, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q (music video director)[edit]

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

Mixture of spam, poor sourcing, and potential lack of notability. Bringing it here to force the issue. AndrewHowse (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also appears to be self-created. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - autobiospam vanity article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spammy autobiography that is better suited for his personal website. The sources that are given are of questionable reliability, refer mostly to his work and, as far as I can tell, fail to verify information in the article or establish notability. The lack of inline citations and the proliferation of peacock terms make it nearly impossible to accurately determine which text is verifiable and which is PR junk. Xenon54 / talk / 20:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VSCT. Lack of self-evident reliable sources, does not appear to meet WP:GNG minimum standards. --Jayron32 22:08, 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 redirect to Andiron. And delete first. Sandstein 07:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firedog[edit]

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

Former brand of Circuit City, tagged for merge since January. From the looks of it, it appears that while the brand was sold, it lacks stand-alone notability (all references are about Circuit City, not Firedog). It also doesn't appear to even be worth merging, as it would give undue weight to Firedog over the rest of the former company's operations. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to andiron, the primary meaning of "firedog". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Andiron, I've always wondered what those things were called. Abductive (reasoning) 17:32, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pispalan kumppanuus ry[edit]

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

Non-notable local organisation, failing WP:ORG which states among other things that "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." andy (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently, no evidence of notability. --Dweller (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so there are 2 things here:

1. notability 2. localness of scope

1. looking at other wikipedia articles as to what is considered suitably notable this seems to meet those criteria. 2. as explained in the article discussion there is work with associations outside of the local area (pispala) which is why the article was split from the Pispala article. e.g. World of Tango Festival, project at European level, project in Austria

the wikipedia guideline here is not easy to follow, as an organization may not have a local area geographically, for example working internationally or being a platform.Pispalapartnership (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Pispalapartnership[reply]

Response: the criteria for notability are very straightforward and this organisation doesn't seem to meet them. The principle criterion, as explained at WP:ORG and elsewhere, is that the subject of the article must have been "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". I see no evidence of this. The criterion given in the nomination explains how notability might be achieved in the case of smaller local organisations but simply having links to one or two other organisations elsewhere is insufficient. Where's the coverage by reliable independent sources? The article itself states that it's incredibly easy to set up an organisation in Finland - by implication there must be many similar organisations to this one, none of them notable. andy (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Has the organisation been discussed at any length in newspapers or magazines? (Not just passing references). --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB I suspect this organisation may be notable, although I couldn't find an article about it on fi:. So I've left a note at the fi: Village Pump asking for help. --Dweller (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Pispalan kumppanuus is notable, but Pispala's private library by Pispala kirjastoyhdistys is. It is noted in mainstream media and has some awards However, Pispala kumppanuus webpage says that they are running Kansalaistalo, 'citizenship house', which is tight partner with Pispala's private library. House is also local culture hub and it publishes it own magazine Pispalainen so maybe whole thing is notable enough. --Zache —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.224.44 (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A333 (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small local project, not significant (and greetings from Tampere :) ) --Aulis Eskola (talk) 17:05, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tank game[edit]

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

Declined G11 nominee, but asserted to be non-notable video game anyway. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. There are many hundreds of similar games for the iPhone. andy (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indications of notability Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the discussion concluded? I would like to know the result. May I remove the "Delete notification" yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicboker (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable.--Altt311 (talk) 23:23, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High yield trading fund[edit]

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

Not notable. The article includes zero sources, and I cannot find any independent sources myself. A "high yield trading fund" does not appear to be a standard term in the financial industry. Instead, it appears to be marketing language by a single company by the same name (which is the only source I can find for the term). See this web site. SnottyWong talk 13:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coatrack spam, this rosy description is all about how you can make money fast on the Internet with this business's fund: the new generation of market instruments ... when cyber solutions (see cyber trading) for asset management become widely applicable.... In modern conditions, a market situation allows to obtain huge profits, including that from cyber-trading that detects and helps make use of even a tiny volatility. This technology is realized by various High Yield Trading Funds.... variety of funds, mechanisms, evaluation schemes, operating steps, even currencies involved, bring to investors a world of investment opportunities.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have preferred to give this more than four days after I declined the speedy delete, but yeah - all the sources I have found evaporate on closer inspection. User:Wiseadviser - can you point out some independent sources for this term? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors,

1) Rosy description has been removed, now it is neutral, I hope. (after I complete the "Criticism and Risk Estimation" clause - there will be more risk warnings disclosed. Shall I complete it first?)

2) The name of the article was changed (see alternative names, too) - there are many links for the present name, please google and see.

3) Adding several referral links is in progress too. --Wiseadviser (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiseadviser, our main gripe with the article is not that it is original research or poorly written, as neither of those are criteria for deletion. What we need from you are reliable, independent, verifiable sources which establish the notability of this financial product. Notability is a requirement for every article on Wikipedia, per the general notability guidelines. SnottyWong talk 13:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my article I try to provide the definition and review for the phenomena of "high yield (trading) fund". There are many companies which follow this concept, you may find "high yield (trading) fund" even in their names or news, so the definition for the phenomena can be described in Wikipedia, I think. And it is not present among Wikipedia articles yet. But the references directly to these companies means the marketing, I think should be escaped to keep the article neutral.

Here are example links to such companies (just some from the google search):
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0568308.htm
http://www.stockhouse.com/News/USReleasesDetail.aspx?n=7564569
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/chartingbasics_new.aspx?symbol=PHF&selected=PHF http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:HYF
http://www.pacholder.com/cm/Satellite?c=pacSitePage&cid=1222930502484&pagename=PacholderFunds/pacSitePage/pacTwoColumnTemplate
http://www.parexgroup.com/en/services/parex-funds/baltic-high-yield-fund/
http://www.stockhouse.com/Columnists/2009/Dec/1/Only-way-I-know-to-generate-12--income----safely

And more links to online dictionaries:
http://lexicon.ft.com/term.asp?t=high_yield-fund
http://www.yourdictionary.com/finance/high-yield-fund
http://www.morningstar.nl/nl/glossary/default.aspx?articleid=76235&categoryid=488
--Wiseadviser (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources provided are about a mutual fund, not about this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ChildofMidnight,
These are quite separate and independent properties for some particular legal entity and its activity:
- "Mutual fund" is a proprietary property;
- "High yield fund" - characterizes its activity policy (strategy), relative yield amount (achieved or expected), and yield distribution policy.
I hope, that is obvious, - some "high yield (trading) fund" can be a kind of "mutual fund," but not necessarily. Some legal entity, being not a mutual fund, still can realize high yield trading concept and be a "high yield (trading) fund".
--Wiseadviser (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So a "high yield trading fund" is a trading fund that promises to make you a lot of money? Sign me up! None of the article or Wiseadviser's clarifications make any sense to me. But, that doesn't matter. All I need to see is a few articles from reputable publications that are talking about high yield trading funds. Not about one high yield trading fund in particular, but about high yield trading funds in general. SnottyWong talk 03:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SnottyWong,

PRIMA FACIE

Please kindly read the links to dictionary articles I have mentioned above. These dictionary articles are as follows:

a) Lexicon dictionary by Financial Times
http://lexicon.ft.com/term.asp?t=high_yield-fund
(see also an article in Wikipedia, what is Financial Times)
This definition article in Financial Times' Lexicon is sourced from the Longman Business English Dictionary (http://eltcatalogue.pearson.com/Course.asp?Callingpage=Catalogue&CourseID=UA)

b) yourdictionary.com dictionary
http://www.yourdictionary.com/finance/high-yield-fund
This definition article in yourdictionary.com is sourced from the Webster's New World Finance and Investment Dictionary (http://www.yourdictionary.com/finance/)

From your message it can be obviously concluded that these dictionary publications are counted by you as "not reputable", don't they? If so, then I just give up your appraisal! :)

THE SECOND

The High Yield Funds is named by me "trading" because only often, active and aggressive trading with securities of high liquidity can provide high yields to make them stable and escape excessive risks. The reasoning is represented below: In general, the high yields for the participants depend on how the following aspects of the Fund's activity policy (strategy) are fulfilled:
A)
How much yield the Fund itself earns currently.
B)
How the Fund hedges risks to maintain the yields stable and escape losses through the time (mathematical expectation must be positive).
C)
How the Fund shares earned yields among inside participants and public participants.

The yield of the Fund itself can be obtained by THREE possible ways:

I.
Operations with high rated securities. These can be traded automatically due to high liquidity, so that even tiny volatility fluctuations could be trapped. Also, the operations with high rated securities can be much easier hedged and ensured.

II.
Operations with low rated securities. These are usually poorly backed and often can lose liquidity, which means that the Fund cannot maintain mathematical expectation positive through the long period of time, applying more hedging schemes to such securities assume more difficulties as well, so excessive risks are present. Operations with such kind of securities cannot be frequent, and usually cannot be automated due to low predictability of proper and timely pricing.

III.
Here, I do not review illegal schemes, like Ponzi's or similar pyramidal enterprises, when a yield is not earned, but by fact is sourced from the next-stage participants' investments principals. This is illegal in most countries, nevertheless this kind of operations is the common practice of Governmental institutions, like Central Banks or Federal Reserve, with their bond and currency issuance and of non-governmental financial institutions, like banks, with their derivatives and credit issuance. But "Quod licet lovi, non licet bovi".

The said above clarifies that active and aggressive trading provides legal and stabile way for a Fund to have high yields. And the direction for optimization and modern technology application is defined. This is the argument, why I named the article "High yield (trading) fund" – to disclose the essence of this phenomenon (while the alternative names are - just "High yield fund" and "High yield trading" concept).

THE THIRD

Re. SnottyWong's phrase: "So a "high yield trading fund" is a trading fund that promises to make you a lot of money? Sign me up!"
The style allows me to ask: would you like to sign up to some enterprise which promises you much loss? I do state (and I hope, most people agree) that the promises (expectations and news) are the things which move the prices up and down mostly, - 99% are just subjective or virtual factors which habitate in collective mind, and 1% or so is the objective matter:
- Do Chrysler or GMC cars loss their qualities in the last couple of years?
- Does oil become exhausted from wells when its price raised 12 times or its consumption increased proportionally? And why in the last couple years it fell 5 times again, and during last half of a year raised twice again?
- Did the population grow 10 times so that real estate became 10-fold more? And why then the prices collapsed?
- Did Lehman Brothers run away to outer space with chests full of gold and cash?
The virtual sources effect the collective mind, the collective mind effects individual to make this or that decision, and these rule and make the market!

--Wiseadviser (talk) 10:23, 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 delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist Accusation - Painting[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable painting (the article appears to have been created by the artist). Does not meet WP:RS or WP:V requirements. Warrah (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sign of notability, at least for the painting. Hairhorn (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ Delete ~~This could easily be speedied as there are no claims to notability.~~ This is just a description of a painting. We generally only have articles for notable and important works of art. freshacconci talktalk 13:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a speedy for paintings now? Hairhorn (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. Wasn't thinking of the actual available criteria for speedy deletions. Changed my !vote accordingly. freshacconci talktalk 14:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-encyclopedic, and nn...Modernist (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Artworks can be encyclopedic, but only if they receive sufficient coverage to meet WP:N. That isn't the case here. Nick-D (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search turns up virtually nothing, certainly nothing to justify an article. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the artist, nor certainly this painting, seems to meet WP:GNG. --Glenfarclas (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 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 merge to Tyler Perry. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Maxine Perry[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable parent of a notable person, fails WP:NOTINHERITED. WWGB (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is regarding the death of famous filmmaker Tyler Perry's mother, and most notably, she is also the person who the iconic Tyler Perry character "Madea" is based on. I would think that being the real-life person that "Madea" is based on would be enough for inclusion regardless of also being Tyler Perry's mother, but if that is not the case, than by all means delete the listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaway (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into the Tyler Perry article: the information about her all pertains to her relationship to Tyler, but (if sources can be found to prove it) her influence on the Madea character would be legitimate for inclusion in the article on her son. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect agreed...she isn't notable but if as mentioned above it is citeable that she was the influence it could be noted on her son's profile. 78.86.230.62 (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be appropriate. The sources are available to prove her influence in creating Madea - there are numerous articles available to cite with quotes from Tyler Perry and there is also an audio interview with Perry where he talks about her influence on the source EInsiders which has already been cited. Pharaway (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Pharaway[reply]

Delete: per WP:BIO, WP:NOTABILITY. Not entitled to her own article because of the accomplishments of her son. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:38, 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 Delete per G12 by KillerChihuahua. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ns2voip[edit]

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

Seems to be an essay, not an article about an applied use of an internet proticol. Does not seem to belong on WikiPedia Random Time 12:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to cobble together material taken verbatim from several other sources that don't specify that the material is available under the CC-BY-SA (see article talk page), so I have tagged for speedy G12. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:41, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learning jazz piano and Jazz theory[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced how-to guide, failing WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:VER andy (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating an identical page at

andy (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. These are original research essays that fit the speedy deletion criteria. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/speedy delete Learning Jazz Piano for the reason I prodded it, WP:NOTHOWTO. Oh right, and WP:OR too. Jazz Theory, on the other hand could have been a good article on an encyclopedic topic (cf. Music theory, Counterpoint). I would probably delete it now with nothing encyclopedic to merge elsewhere, as an OR essay. --Glenfarclas (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD:A10. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:15, 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. and Salt Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bussey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Disputed PROD. Player has never played professionally, so fails WP:ATHLETE. For the same reason I am also nominating David Blenkinsopp. Both articles have been deleted at least twice before -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Neither Halesowen Town nor Kettering Town FC have played in fully professional leagues while these players have been there (or ever, I believe?), so their players don't de facto meet WP:ATHLETE; neither of these appears to have received significant coverage in reliable sources (like national papers) that would otherwise get them past the WP:BIO guidelines. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, neither club has ever played in a fully pro league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both for failing Wp:ATHLETE - neither Kettering nor Halesowen have played in a fully-pro league and neither has either player. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per nom, both individuals fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per nom, both individuals fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG as per above Steve-Ho (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both both fail WP:ATH as they haven't played at a fully-professional level, also fail WP:GNG due to no significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 00:55, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Core Knowledge Perspective[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE. Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Search of books reveals 3 results; two of which are by the author of the concept. Search in news reveals zero results. Search in scholarly works reveals 3 results; one of which is by author of concept, the other two don't seem to give significant discussion to the term itself. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party sources in the article. Miami33139 (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Terms that are specific to a single author shouldn't have their own article. It would be good if the original author contributes material to related articles (if that isn't happening already). MartinPoulter (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Were this worth having an article about, Google Scholar ought to produce something; it yields nothing obviously about this particular elk theory. The idle may want to contemplate how this article's five core knowledge perspectives could be condensed to four or expanded to six or more. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Del per above --The.Filsouf (talk) 01:17, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is abundantly clear that this person passes WP:PROF #1 with flying colors. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JoAnn E. Manson[edit]

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

This BLP was created in an apparent major COI violation, and while the subject seems to almost meet WP:PROF, it misses the mark. Tb (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting argument: This one is complex, and I apologize for the length. The article was created in an apparent massive COI violation, and has enjoyed no other editors. That in itself is sufficient to raise major suspicion. I request initially that editors evaluating this AfD do not give credence to the representations in the article, which are generally unsourced. Even then, however, I believe it does not meet any of the criteria for notability.

First, consider WP:PROF. Criterion one does not merely call for publication (of that there is no doubt) but highly cited publication. When I checked the articles which JoAnn E. Manson identified as most important, I did not find very much citation. Criterion two measures highly prestigious awards, but the awards listed on JoAnn E. Manson are not of the rank WP:PROF suggests are applicable here (Nobel, Fields Medal, MacArthur, etc.) Criterion three asks for elected members of prestigious societies, which there is no indication of. Criterion four asks for significant educational impact; she is identified as the author of a single textbook of recent publication. Her posting is not a special distinguished professorship rank (criterion five), nor the highest post at her institution (criterion six). Criterion seven is about substantial impact outside academia, but she has mostly authored a few articles and done the occasional speaking. There is no indication of editorships (criterion eight). Criterion nine does not apply to medicine.

Now, consider WP:BIO and WP:N. Here we must distinguish between writing about her, versus writing by her. If merely authoring were sufficient for notability, then WP:PROF would be moot, and essentially all academics would be notable. It is not her own publications which matter, or her writing, but rather, occasions in which she is written about. And that seems to be absent.

This is certainly a borderline case. But the fact of its borderline nature might well, when combined with the vanity character of the article, and its origin, could well argue that it should be removed. At least, the community should be invited to decide. Tb (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that our article is almost clear copyvio of this website. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, that's pretty awful. I have removed the material which was essentially identical to that reference, which doesn't leave our article empty, but it does rather substantially reduce it. Tb (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am persuaded by supporting argument above. This physician may be prominent in her field, but that does not mean she is notable by our guidelines. Vartanza (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep. Full professors at Harvard are prima facie likely to be notable and this one passes WP:Prof #1 with flying colors. Her record on GS, if I have interpreted it correctly, is astonishing. Her top cites are 1733, 1645, 1762, 1612, 1413, 1217 .... and her h index is around 140, the highest I have seen on these pages. She has received notable prizes and probably satisfies WP:Prof #2 too. COI, if it exists, is no reason for deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hogwash. WP:PROF could say "full professors at Ivy League schools are notable", but it doesn't because the standard is tighter than that. What is expected is a name chair or distinguished professor position. Such things do exist at Harvard, and Manson does not hold one. Tb (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be mistaken. Her named chair is as a Professor of Women's Health at Harvard Medical School; you have been claiming it is at Brigham and Women's Hospital, but that's not true, her position there is Chief of Preventive Medicine. See for instance this source. In any case, Xxanthippe was making an argument based on criterion #1 of WP:PROF, not #5, so your argument besides being factually incorrect misses the point. And please tone down your language, per WP:CIVIL. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was relying on a link (see below) which contained a statement inconsistent with the faculty page, which does, as you note, say the named chair is at HMS; the other page says it's at BWH. As for the "hogwash" comment, that was specifically about the idea that somehow all full professors at Harvard are prima facie likely to be notable. There is no such assumption, nor should we create one. The existing guidelines are good ones, and this article should be measured against them, and not against ones like "Harvard full profs are all prima facie likely to be notable". Tb (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the term prima facie. It means 'at first sight' the implication being that further investigation is likely (but not certain) to substantiate the case. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I suspect it is rather you who do not. The use of the term carries an implication specifically that a prima facie case establishes a rebuttable presumption, and that the burden of proof is shifted to the other side. It is precisely that which I disagree with here. In no way does being a full professor at Harvard establish any kind of presumption of notability. Rather, it is specifically the criteria listed at WP:PROF which establish such a presumption. Tb (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and ~~salt~~. I've just looked up Web of science with "Author=(Manson J E) Refined by: Institutions= HARVARD UNIV" and got 728 articles with 54,564 cites; h-index 127, 6 articles with >1000 cites each. At least some of those check out with this article, thus no "other J E Manson" (one coauthor Stampfer MJ is mostly there as an extra check). Sure, medical articles are more cited than any other field, but even then, these numbers are raising all remaining hair on my head :-0 Materialscientist (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought salt was for deleted articles. To protect them in their deleted state. You know, like the Romans protected Carthage in its deleted state. So I'm a little confused what you mean by it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I meant prevent any further AFD attempt of this article. Perhaps snow is a right wikipedese term. Never mind. Materialscientist (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Any further AFD attempt"? Tb (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Along with the arguments above she has a named chair at Harvard and thereby passes WP:PROF #5. Cleanup is not a good reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, she does not have a named chair at Harvard. Her faculty page is at [51], and she does not hold a named chair. Tb (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[52] Abductive (reasoning) 07:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've confused Brigham and Women's (not a university) with Harvard. She does not hold a named chair at Harvard. Whether BWH counts or not on this score is not clear to me, but it's not the same as Harvard, as User:David Eppstein said. Tb (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a teaching hospital affliliated with Harvard. Big teaching hospitals have the same sort of systems as research universities for their doctors (MD Doctor or PhD Doctor, same diff). Abductive (reasoning) 08:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but also named chairs are vastly more common (because of the way donor relations work with non-profit hospitals) than they are with universities. Having a named chair at a hospital is nowhere near as impressive (in itself) as having a named chair at Harvard. Tb (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She holds a named chair in the Harvard Medical School. She also holds a (non-named) appointment in the Harvard School of Public Health. Claiming that HMS is not really Harvard strikes me as an instance of the no true Scotsman fallacy, and in any case is not relevant: WP:PROF does not rely on the distinction between medical schools and other kinds of academic affiliation. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was relying on the link User:Abductive pointed to, which differs on this from the faculty page. The former refers to a named professorship at BWH, and the latter refers to it (as you note) at HMS. Tb (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, citations are 1762, 1744, 1645, 1612, 1413, 1297, 1265, 1182, 1093, 1052, 931, 918, 886, 796, 740, 731, 697, 643, 629, 620, 587, 587, 576, 564, 557, 546, 540, 540, 534, 522, 517, 512, 489, 487, 485, 483, 468, 467, 456, 448, and I got tired... The Category:Iranian academics is filled with people who may not even exist. Find some of those to nominate. Abductive (reasoning) 05:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at Manson's articles, the citations were nearly all to papers she was not the principal author of. Can you do more than just cite numbers, and provide the examples? Tb (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if only taking the ones she was the first author on, it goes 1413, 918, 587, 564, 534, 456, 238, 220, 199, 112, 110, 106, 91, 59, 53, 50, 47, 29, 29, 25, 23, 22, 20, 14, 13, 11, 9, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4. This is an h-index of 22 as a first author. Anyway, I added my notvote as a supplement to all the other reasons stated by the other editors here. I can barely get the most egregious COI-authored, non-notable prof at some college that doesn't even grant PhDs deleted because a few editors think that any full prof is notable, and nominations like this one don't help me in that effort. Abductive (reasoning) 07:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's distressing that the obvious cases are hard. This is another egregious COI case, and I certainly agree it's borderline. Tb (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a case that can be solved by editing. Abductive (reasoning) 08:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it can. All the sources are either the self-written bio type, or mere directory listings. The other things that might indicate notability offer little in the way of biography. But that merely means the article would be small--if we remove the vanity bits. Tb (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a thought exercise, write a sourced Wikipedia article on a prof you know to be notable. I find it difficult not to make it a copy of their CV, or, if I stick to the outside sources, a weird little squib that doesn't do them justice. They also feel like obituaries to me. So I haven't done any yet. Abductive (reasoning) 09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this very difficulty suggests that a lot of profs who have been counted notable really aren't. Tb (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jees. I've just looked through some of those .. Anyone up to CSD-tag them? Materialscientist (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been nibbling around the edges, prodding a few. One has to be careful; their names might be transliterated wrong. On the other hand, some don't even have appointments at universities... Abductive (reasoning) 06:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very far from borderline. In addition to the above, >1,000 gnews hits, 200+ gbooks hits. Lots of info on her out there, easily enough to make it more than a CV by any standards.John Z (talk) 00:16, 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 Userfy. Upon request by DGG I'm userfying this. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The result was delete. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 14:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

E-Century Publishing Corporation[edit]

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

This non-notable corporation publishes some academic journals that are also all non-notable, in my opinion. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 07:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather new company, no indication of notability (yet). No prejudice to recreation if this should change in the future.--Crusio (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge journal articles into this one, per DGG below. --Crusio (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ My reasons: 1. Yes, this company was rather new by the common sense. However, the achievement of having 5 professional medical journals launched successfully, and 4 of them are indexed in PubMed and PubMed Centrals of multiple major countries (USA, UK and Canada) make it unique, and highly notable. 2. Yes, this company does not have extensive coverage from the conventional media. However, it is a company that is dedicated to the Open Access of Science (Knowledge), which is quite different from the most conventional business that is largely aimed at profit-generating. However, the indexing by PubMed and full text archiving of its journals in PubMed Central that are being accessed by hundreds of thousands of scientists and millions of public across the world everyday can be considered as the "media coverage", and is extensive. 3. Hundreds Editorial Board members in the five journals are all from the top universities and academic institutes across the world. Many of them are distinguished investigators, physicians with international reputation in their research field. The reason for these high profile scientists across the world are participating and supporting the subject in discussion is because the cause of this company pursuing is Notable. 4. As a strong believer and long time supporter of the effort of making the knowledge freely available like the air to everyone on this planet, I think that their cause is notable cause, therefore, I truly believe that this page is worth the keeping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenAccessforScience (talk • contribs) 17:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are rather new to Wikipedia, so you are making the common mistake of interpreting "notability" in its common sense (like, "important", "worthwhile", and such). You would do well to read the Wikipedia notability guideline for organizations and corporations, so that you will see what is needed for a company to be "notable" in the WP sense. --Crusio (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed that you have been helping to improve my contributions here. Many thank for your time and effort to help. But from the reading of the "notability" page of Wikipedia, I found this publisher meets every criteria described: 1. "Reliable, independent secondary sources": PubMed and PMC are the reliable and indenpendent sources and they are continuing cover this company by puting the sentence "Articles from International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology are provided here courtesy of e-Century Publishing Corporation" in every new article that is archived. 2. "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." This publisher is doing the great things to all of us just like Wikipedia and "worthy of being noted", and is "attracting notice", and IS having notable and demonstrable effects on culture, science and education...I can go on to argue on this, but I think that i have made my point and can stop here.OpenAccessforScience (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability and any encyclopedic discussion in third-party sources presented. - Altenmann >t 23:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & further Comment Please forgive me not faking the second User ID to post the second "Keep" message here...But I do willing to salute to you for your great contributions to this great project over the years. Here is my thought on why this article should be kept. The publisher is different from many conventional businesses that may not have lasting impact to our culture, society and knowledge system. Once published articles get into the PubMed, PubMed Central and NLM's collections and the likes, they will stay there for hundreds, if not thousands years even the original publisher is long gone. It is the duty of any publication who claims herself as an "encyclopedia" to provide the answer regarding the publisher of those papers to future readers who also want to know who had published the papers that they are reading thousands years ago :). Even a publisher is out of business in one year, it is still worth to give her a small corner in any "Encyclopedia" as long as this publisher has some publications (articles) are indexed/archived in PubMed/PMC. This publisher in discussion already have hundreds papers archived in PubMed and PMC, and are certainly going to contributing more, even it disappears tomorrow and never reaches the "notability" as we expect, should not it deserve a short article here in Wikipedia? As the original creator, I feel obligated to improve this article as you suggested, and I will certainly try my best as soon as I have time to get on it. Hopefully, the revised article will eventually acceptable with the help from you, Crusio, DGG, Abductive, John and all caring colleagues here. OpenAccessforScience (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

delete. No independent coverage. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not think the individual journals published by the company are most of them notable yet, but using this article for a combination article in the meantime seems a reasonable solution for the moment. The best solution is to wait a year and try the articles for the journals again. They might become so, but it will need citation figures to show it. It is true that there will not be references to this sort of material from the general media, but if they are of the importance claimed, articles about them in the various medical sources should discuss them. Is there anything in Bulletin of the medical library Association, or ever MEDLIB-L? DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's nothing in Research Information about this publisher.[53] This is all the blog coverage I can find:[54][55][56][57][58] I think Delete until some significant coverage in reliable sources appear, but failing that merge all the journals to the publisher's page. Fences&Windows 03:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Colleagues and friends, I just edited the article in discussion as you suggested. Hopefully it has been improved a little bit. Please feel free to improve it or do whatever you think appropriate. Very happy and honored to have this unique opportunity to talk to all of you. Thank you for your patience with me as a new comer and your advices and help in any format. Wish you all have a wonderful holiday season.OpenAccessforScience (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and follow DGG's idea of merging and redirecting the individual journal articles to this main article. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the business or its products show notability, and neither would they if it was all merged. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Keep A new, small, not famous publisher like this one is notable, may be even highly notable given that it is publishing six peer reviewed professional medical journals, particularly with four of them already indexed in PebMed and other major medical databases. Not see such nice thing often.NorthfaceW (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) — NorthfaceW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Weak Delete Were it not for DGG I'd vote a clear delete. What this publisher is doing may well be admirable, but I don't see how it can be said to meet our notability guidelines at present. All the articles on the journals seem to have been written by OpenAccessforScience who I think may be affiliated with the publisher. On the other hand I greatly respect DGG's judgement. NBeale (talk) 07:41, 20 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 G3 - blatantly incorrect information. So Why 11:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woodrow "Woody" Morton Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Woodrow "Woody" Morton Jr.

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

Probably a WP:Hoax], as the supposed Academy Award in 2001 is not true, per 74th_Academy_Awards. Also, no Gnews or Ghits, which would not be possible if he were as famous as the article claims. I don't feel a CSD is the way to go about this, so I am proposing for AFD instead. Fbifriday (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should explain why I am not going about this through CSD. I can not prove it's a hoax, and as the article makes a claim of notability, I can not put a CSD tag for a non-notable person. --Fbifriday (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 as a hoax, and also per WP:BLP. There is a real actor by this name who has appeared on the television series mentioned in this article. However, almost everything else in this article (and there is not much) is blatantly inaccurate. I don't know if someone is trying to embarrass the real actor by giving him a fake Wikipedia biography, but this article is primarily devoted to unsourced and unsourceable claims about a living person, so it needs to get deleted. This page may not look like an attack page, but making obviously false claims about a person's purported achievements can be a way of mocking them, so I would prefer to speedily delete this article as an attack page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:15, 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. Wizardman 16:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Herriott[edit]

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

Not an especially notable minor league player or manager. Alex (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASE/N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Only references cited are a statistics site and a wiki (which, according to WP:SPS, shouldn't be used as a source). BRMo (talk) 01:54, 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 delete. Wizardman 16:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don Griffin (baseball)[edit]

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

Not an especially notable minor league player or manager. Alex (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only reference cited is a statistics site, which is not sufficient to establish notability per WP:BASE/N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BRMo (talk) 20:13, 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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Immo Stax[edit]

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

This article is about a nonnotable biography which fails WP:BIO as the subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, nor has he won a notable award or impacted his field in any significant way. The article is also an unreferenced BLP. Them From Space 06:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DeleteAgree with nom, non-notable muscal artist, and as such, fails A7 of the CSD. --Fbifriday (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indications of notability. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tough to establish notability as a ghostwriter. Can find no WP:RS to establish WP:N. J04n(talk page) 16:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, notability unclear Vartanza (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All info Provided answers all questions any of you may have. Your welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exhileremnant (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see the notability - how DO you get known as a ghostwriter? No reliable references. Also, the possibility of something happening in 2010 mentioned in one of those links makes me suspect that this is an advance setup for plugging something.... Maybe I'm just over-suspicious. Maybe not. Peridon (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If any of you have an unknown reason to believe Immo has not won any wards you are more than welcome to come see them for yourself. If you are in doubt that I have ghostwritten for successful artsits, and this one may be a bit more tedious than you'd expect, you are more than welcome to ask them yourself. Here is a short list for you to get started with.

Open Mic Champion Atrium Night Club 4x (2001-2007)

Open Mic Champion Pink Flamingo Night Club many consecutive weeks (2004)

Countless Freestyle/ battle competitions @ Apache cafe in Atlanta, Masquerade nightclub in Atlanta, O'reilly's Night Club in Decatur and The Libabry (2001-2008)

Written for/with hip hop artists such as but not limited to Nikki Nicole (Konvict Records 2005,)Short aka Short Dawg From TX, (DJ Tomp, signed with Lil Bow Wow currently in 2009), produced beats for Vikki/ Fatima of Convict Records alongside DJ Ike Boogie.

Written for/produced for alternative rock groups/pop artists such as but not limited to Eddie Versatile, Jazzy, Rkane, & Meiko of MGA recordings. (1998-2009)

you can locate more info and material from this artist and his current entertainment group at the following links;

www.soundclick.com/immostax

www.myspace.com/immostax

www.ourstage.com/epk/immostax

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.188.103.59 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and there was absolutely nothing stated about whats happening in 2010 whatsoever anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.188.103.59 (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you prefer to dig deeper than that, request information on Immo Stax, Real name Khary Reynolds, for the Georgia State Registrar and The Library Of Congress in Washingtion. Once again if you have any further questions regarding thsi subject feel free to contact us @ <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.188.103.59 (talk) 05:07, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King & King[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/King & King

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

Does not meet any of WP:NB criteria. Article undoubtedly created solely because of a brief controversy. Wikipedia is not a news source. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The controversy over this book has received news coverage in mainstream media over a period of several years. See The New York Times (2004), ABC News (2005), Boston Globe (2006), and Fox News (2007), for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the purposes of this article would be better met by merging with Homosexuality in children's literature. The reason the article was created is clearly not because of the book, but because of the reaction to the book. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has generated more controversy and inspired more debate than any other children's book during this decade [59], and continues to do so. Although a merge to the more general article would be another outcome, this one has independent notability in arguments over freedom of speech and the age at which children are introduced to what Wikipedia calls "LGBT" topics, among other things. Some have said that this is not "homosexuality in children's literature", since there is no sex. As with Heather Has Two Mommies, people consult articles about particularly controversial books to find out what the controversy is about. Mandsford (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, passes WP:GNG (and WP:NB#1) with flying rainbow colors. I don't follow the distinction between "the book" and "the reaction to the book"; reaction to a book is quite often exactly what makes it notable. Also, I note there seem to be more details in the Dutch version of this article[60] that could profitably make their way into English Wikipedia.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:22, 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 keep and move to List of Unification Church members. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unificationists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is not needed. There is already a category "Unificationists." In addition ~~most~~ a good part of the people listed here are also listed in True Family. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I temporarily moved unsourced entries to the talk page. I was intending to soon move them back, sourcing each one. True Family naturally would only discuss individuals in the "True Family", and not other notable members of the Unification Church. Please see the talk page for plenty of other notable members that will soon be sourced back at the main list page. Quite frankly I am a bit surprised to see this nomination after the last one resulted in "Keep", and coming so soon after I began a cleanup of the page by moving unsourced info to the talk page. Cirt (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'If Kept Rename "Unificationist" is waaaay too confusing. The Unification of Ireland, the Unification of Germany, and other national unificiation movements would be an obvious meaning for this list. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

76.66.193.90 (talk · contribs) made a similar suggestion at the prior AFD [61]. This actually is a good idea. Cirt (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. There are only eight people listed on the page now, seven of whom are members of the founder's family or former in-laws. If there are reliable sources to support the inclusion of other people whose names have been moved to the talk page (because they were previously unsourced), then those people should be moved back to the article with appropriate sourcing included. I might reconsider if that were done. By the way, a better title would be List of Unification Church members. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my above comment? Did you look at the talk page? Did you note that I am going to do a rework of the article and add additional sourced entries? Cirt (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing to neutral in recognition of the work done by Cirt to repopulate and source the list. I believe my delete recommendation was legitimate at the time it was made, but now that Cirt's rework has been done, deletion is no longer necessary. I still support moving the article to a better title assuming it is kept. (The reason I am "neutral" instead of recommending "keep" is based on my view of lists in general, not a criticism of this particular list as revised.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename: With the rationale given by nominator, it literally can't be deleted for those reasons. "Most" of the people already there means we'd be losing content. Even 1 character of content deleted without a new home is still lost content. That's picky, but something Wikipedia cares about. More still, there being a category doesn't mean there can't be a list page or vice-versa. They have different purposes. True Family is kind of limited to family, so even having 1 more name of someone that is independently notable on top of their membership to this faith, the article is justified. Weak points, I entirely admit this, but I can't think of any direct policy that would promote a delete. "Not needed" is a weak justification for nomination unless it's literally a copy-paste job, and instead is trying to cling on to WP:ALLORNOTHING. It's already here, and there's no reason to think that WP:BURDEN fell through the cracks and this has to be vetted from scratched. That's not what AfD is. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I would have no objections to a rename as mentioned just above ♪ daTheisen (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please note that I am in the middle of ongoing work on this article. I agree with 76.66.192.35 (talk · contribs), Metropolitan90 (talk · contribs), and Datheisen (talk · contribs) that if kept, the page have a rename to List of Unification Church members. Cirt (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Earlier AfD decided to keep. The list will probably be useful to people studying the church, which has come into greater media attention in the last couple of months. The inclusion of former members, however, might give rise to BLP concerns. Is a person defined by his former membership in a church? Some are former members of several. BTW being a child of Rev. and Mrs. Moon does not necessarily mean that that person is also a member of his church, as much as we church members might wish that was so. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have done a considerable amount of work on the page List of Unificationists. It now has every single entry cited, with 31 sources used [62]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict with Cirt, who has just done some fine work]:

Keep and move to List of Unification Church members. Reading the above, it's clear that the nomination to delete was ill-advised. Cirt has now found references for all the entries (with WP articles) that didn't have one and has brought the list up to standards. Metropolitan90's "vote" to delete should be disregarded on the grounds that he apparently didn't read what Cirt had just written. In any case, at the very least, his argument was invalidated when Cirt found the references and restored entries which were temporarily moved to the talk page. The page serves a useful purpose for those studying Unificationism (and this would be an argument for including those few who are of vital importance to Unificationism but do not have their own articles, such as Won Pil Kim and Yejin Moon). I share a concern similar to Steve's that including people just because they were former members raises BLP issues. In previous discussions there was a pretty broad consensus that those for whom former membership was not a "defining characteristic" should not be included. That would only clearly exclude Tim Folzenlogen, but perhaps others should be excluded as well. Putting deceased people in the same category as anti-church activists seems inappropriate. Members of the True Family who are not church members should certainly be retained, however. Parentheses with "no longer a church member" might be a better alternative than having a separate section for these few. -Exucmember (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - there are other lists of members of small religions (eg List of Scientologists and List of rinzai Buddhists), and there's no need to lose this. WP has lists as well as categories because they serve different needs. Categories, for example, provide no information about who the person in the category is - you have to go to the article. The name, though, is confusing for the reason stated above - Unification has mathematical and political meanings, as well as this religious meaning. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : a sourced article that meets WP:N. Thanks Cirt for your good work. -- Europe22 (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been improved with better sources and unsourced people taken off. However almost half is a reposting of the material in True Family and I still don't think a list is needed for the few others when they already have a category so that interested people can look them up. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, the majority of the list is composed of others that are not members of the Moon family. Cirt (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I said "almost half" was on the Moon family. We are still talking about a very small number of people. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as the number is larger than the Moon family, which has its own article as well. Cirt (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with the article was just shown when Junko Sakurada was put back with very thin sources, a 1999 Australian newspaper story and a more recent American book. If she is a UC member she does not seem to make that public, since it was not mentioned in her article until today. Northwestgnome (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also one person listed twice, and it's already a really short list. Northwestgnome (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum. If you wish to question the reliability of any individual source, you may do so on the article's talk page and if that does not resolve it you can bring the matter to WP:RSN. But I highly doubt others will agree with you that a book published by University of Chicago Press is not reliable. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were wrong about stock market regulation. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep iff renamed to something less confusing. Jonathunder (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Most of the above recommendations are to rename to "List of Unification Church members". ;) Cirt (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/rename As pointed out above, we have other lists of members of small new religious movements. The list includes entries that aren't covered by the category, including former members. Will Beback talk 19:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The article certainly should be renamed to "Unification Church members" if its intention is to list them. There are also Unificationists (in the sense of being believers in Rev. Moon) who are not members of the Unification Church, and (as others have said) there are other contexts in which the word "unificationist" is used. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that group is left out. There are a couple of Catholic priests who left their church to get married by Rev. Moon. As it is the list consists of 3 groups: Rev. Moon's family, members of his church who have WP articles, and some people who were members but left. The issue of WP:Original research could be raised since I would be very surprised if anyone else has felt like putting the 3 together before this list. (However my main objection is still that a list is not needed for such a small number of people.) Northwestgnome (talk) 14:36, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gasturb[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. Looked through google and most were not reliable sources, and most certainly not significant coverage.--Fbifriday (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a gas turbine performance simulation program without any indication of either general interest sources or recognition of historical or technical importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 22:27, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groshik[edit]

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

Non-notable character in a non-notable novel. Author removed prod; sadly, db-a7 is for real persons only. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 03:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be redirected to the novel but that article doesn't exist either! Miami33139 (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Union of the Three Americas[edit]

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

No reason to keep around this essay—is there? For another chuckle, see this fellow's other article: Joaquim de Sousa Andrade. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an essay not an article. Although the intention seems to be good. 76.126.9.65 (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. This is cleverly disguised as an article about a historical subject, but after you get past the introduction (which drops Simon Bolivar's name and talks about the OAS, but has nothing to do with a "Union of the Three Americas"), it's something of an argument that there should be something in North, Central and South America analogous to the European Union. And no, it can't be saved. "Union of the Three Americas" is purely the invention of the article's author. No merge, no redirect, not even worth a mention in Pan-Americanism. Adios, au revoir, adeus, goodbye. Mandsford (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Mandsford... the idea of Pan-Americanism has been around for a while and deserves an article... but this definitely isn't it. Blueboar (talk) 02:11, 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 redirect to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10)[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL Airplaneman ^talk 02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unsourced speculation. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) for now. Series will happen, but we're not US Weekly and for now, any talk of contestants is ridiculous and the article should only be created when the actual lineup is announced. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 04:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nate, I mean no offense but, you come across a little heavy handed. I understand this probably won't survive WP:SNOW but I get the feeling you are granting us permission to close this and that's a little over the top for me. Also, AfD is here to discuss what to do, not notify others that you've already done it. Padillah (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty obvious case to redirect. Barring a complete change in direction/dissolution of ABC and BBC Worldwide or one of the hosts/judges pulling a Tiger, there will be a season ten in the spring and at this point, there's no need to go through seven days of discussion to come to the obvious conclusion. Redirects are harmless and can be replaced with an article when the time comes. Nate • (chatter) 07:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then suggest a WP:SNOW close, but it's not your place to single-handedly decide the fate of this article (despite how right you are). I concede that your assumptions are most likely correct, it's your manner I take umbrage with. AfD exists so we have the opportunity to discuss, eliminating that opportunity within hours is not an acceptable recourse. Also, WP:CRYSTAL is a policy so there's a question of WP:IAR for the sake of ease or WP:CRYSTAL for the sake of policy. That is not your decision alone to make. It requires input from the community. Padillah (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to SNOW for one vote; that is for a case in which it is incredibly obvious a keep or delete vote will happen (hoax articles or vandal noms for obvious keeps like nation articles, for instance) by multiple voters. I have taken this action a few times in AfD's where it's obvious seven days of discussion on a topic is needless when a speedy delete or a redirect should have been done in the first place, and the closer and nom also agree with it. Here, there's no crystal-balling at all; a season ten will happen and any network programmer or TV critic isn't going to deny it. Nate • (chatter) 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL and no real need to keep and defend a redirect, it's easy enough to create articles. Padillah (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per Nate. No reason not to have a redirect. Rlendog (talk) 20:57, 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 Brown ministry. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 United Kingdom Cabinet reshuffle[edit]

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

All the info is available at Brown Ministry Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brown ministry. Redirects are cheap. EALacey (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect. Any unique information should be merged to Brown Ministry and a redirect left behind. Other articles have been created in the format "<year> United Kingdom Cabinet reshuffle" and a redirect is a simple way of avoiding someone creating another duplicate article in the future. Road Wizard (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Merge or Redirect. Might be a case for keeping it if it had information on what events caused people to move and what the reaction was, but this is just a list of who went in and out. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Press coverage of a cabinet reshuffle is inevitably going to be fairly extensive, so there should be enough material for a separate article. Everyking (talk) 07:16, 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 Murder of Meredith Kercher. There is consensus that this should not be a separate article, mainly because it is currently seen as a POV fork, but there is no conensus to outright delete it. Sandstein 07:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trial of Knox and Sollecito[edit]

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

This article has been created supposedly as a sub page of Murder of Meredith Kercher. However, it appears to duplicate mainly the same content but with a slightly different slant better suited to the POV of the user who created it. --FormerIP (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the trial of Knox and Sollecito is intimately tied up with the subject of the Murder of Meredith Kercher and, as such, should logically be part of the same page. Currently, the two articles cover much of same ground but diverge in some of their interpretation. This may be intentional, as suggested by FormerIP above, or it could be the inevitable consequence of two articles about essentially the same subject, with slightly different groups of contributors. The material from the trial sub-page should be merged back into various sections of the main article (much of it is not in fact specific to the trial). Bluewave (talk) 11:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [So, to be clear, that's a vote for merge] Bluewave (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I am not sure if it is acceptable to add to my rationale, but I would like to make a few other points. Firstly, the original reason for the sub page was because of the size of the article. At the time the raw text was about 48kb, which is not enormous, when there are a lot of citations etc included in that length. The original article is now 57kb but I believe there is a a certain amount of duplication and that the topic could easily be handled by a single well-written article. I feel there is a body of opinion that would like to extend the article so that all the trial evidence is set out in full so that readers can form an opinion about whether they agree with the verdict of the court. I don't believe that is the purpose of an encyclopaedia: we should summarise the main areas of evidence and the main arguments used by prosecution and defence, but not try to re-run the trials! Hence, I don't think the article needs to be massively expanded. A second point is that one of the comments, below, suggests that the title is wrong. This issue should be addressed by seeking consensus on the main page, not by creating a second article with a different title. A third point is in answer to a comment below that 'many think Knox/Sollecito are simply the "murderers"'. I'm not sure if my own contribution suggest that I am one of these people, but I can't see anyone using the quoted word "murderers", other than the person who wrote that comment. If it were indeed true that the two articles divided into the views of those who perceive the defendants as murderers and those who do not, I would argue that this is a very good reason for having a single article and forcing the two camps to reach a consensus. Bluewave (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FormerIP above, currently the page looks like a POV fork, Delete. rturus (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)22:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Murder of Meredith Kercher and redirect. This page shouldn't have been created in the first place, there's not that much content in the original article that it would require a content fork. Some time to cleanup there will be much better spent. Averell (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It shouldn't be merged because this page is little more than POV refutations of the evidence against Knox and Sollecito, presenting none of the evidence supporting their conviction or evidence, or at least counter-claims, that imply Knox's claims (e.g. being interrogated non stop for 14 hours) to be lies. The article should be deleted, not because it's biased (although it clearly is) but because it adds nothing objective new and there is no distinction between Meredith Kercher's murder and Knox and Sollecito's conviction, therefore to merge the two articles would poison the original with more POV conjecture. 91.104.86.128 (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It's too confusing and cumbersome having two articles when just the one would suffice. It should be merged with Murder of Meredith Kercher.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rename to Amanda Knox. There should be an article on her, with it primary content related to this trial, at it is what she is most notable for, being accused and tried for this crime. The murder of Meredith Kercher article should be renamed to Meredith Kercher, with its primary content on her murder, at it is what she is most notable for (within the context of this encyclopedia, not to those close to her or knew her personally). Quikf (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would mean "turn it into something completely different". Furthermore, in Wikipedia we prefer to cover the event, not the people. Neither person involved in the crime is noteable in any other way, so I don't see any reason to have separate articles on them. Averell (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Amanda Knox" is viewed on Wikipedia 10x times more often than Meredith Kercher, so perhaps the title "Amanda Knox" should be redirected to the trial article. Interest in the Kercher-murder-article only soared to 600,000 pageviews after the conviction of Knox/Sollecito.

Merge back to main article. Absolutely do not rename it to Amanda Knox: the very suggestion confirms the view that it should be merged back. It can easily got at the end, after the Timeline of investigations and before the press comment. Then it can be cleaned up. Do not delete before merging. --Red King (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The intention of this page appears simply to be an attempt to circumvent the partial lockdown of the main page discussing the murder and trial, and to legitimize a point-of-view that other contributions made by the original editor show clearly to be pro-Amanda Knox, and (amongst other things) anti-Italian. If pages like this are not deleted, I believe the general legitimacy of the Wikipedia project as a whole will be brought into disrepute.--Plasticmanic (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The trial of Amanda Knox & Sollecito ended only a few days ago, and the sources, many written in Italian, have yet to be fully translated and analyzed to add details to this page. We don't delete articles just because they contain only 15 paragraphs or "just 28kb" of text. Many editors are relying on Google Translate or Babelfish, with hints from some Italian-fluent readers, to be able to insert more carefully researched information. This takes time. The murder of Kercher is not the same as the trial of Knox/Sollecito. Others have tried to argue that Amanda Knox, condemned as a killer, does not "deserve a separate article" compared to Meredith Kercher, but this article is about the trial of both Knox and Sollecito, who were also convicted and sentenced on the same day. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, please understand that many major sources for the article are written in Italian. Here is one such large webpage from the Italian judge:

"Judgement 28.10.2008", Dr. Paolo Micheli, dep. 2009-01-26, Court of Perugia Italy, trial of Rudy Hermann Guede, webpage (Google Translation, Italian to English): TrGoogle-9asK, Italian webpage: Penale750 (accessed 2009-12-12).

Hence, it will take longer to expand the article with actual text from the trial transcripts, rather than fill the page with questionable claims from English-speaking interpretations of the Italian-language events. The impact to English Wikipedia, about the trial, has been the years of media coverage about the bilingual American girl and her 2-week boyfriend, after only 6 weeks with the British Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy. It is months too soon to claim the page will always be so small as to be easily merged & deleted. You ain't seen nothin' yet. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above comment. The judgement mentioned above is the judgement resulting from the trial of of Rudy Guede (as is obvious from its title). It is highly relevant to the Murder of Meredith Kercher but should barely be mentioned in an article desctribing the trial of Knox and Sollecito. This is a good example of how this sub-article is actually spreading out to cover the same material as the main article from which it was derived. Bluewave (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The reason (at the top) for this AfD claims "created supposedly as a sub page", which is a misleading remark, because the talk-page directly states, at the start, the article was created "as a subarticle" to be expanded (see: "Talk:Trial of Knox and Sollecito#Created"). There is nothing to suppose about the purpose of the article. Any claims to the contrary seem to violate WP:AGF, and the tone of the AfD appears to conclude the subarticle is a "bad-faith" attempt to "slant" a page for POV-biased views. Hence, this AfD must be rejected for improper reasons to request a deletion. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (article needed for non-bias): From responses above, apparently many think Knox/Sollecito are simply the "murderers" only. So the main article should be considered as titled "Murder of Meredith Kercher by her murderers Knox/Sollecito". Thank you for that insight. Obviously, now, the trial absolutely must be separated, as a different article. It must be kept separate to avoid the pre-judged impression of Knox/Sollecito as simply the murders of Kercher in the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" while the appellate-court re-trials are being conducted all during 2010. I finally understand the viewpoint of that article as being "Meredith Kercher and all the worthless people around her" who are too low to be named in the title. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're only supposed to register your "keep" once, Wikid. --FormerIP (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, your rationale for keeping this article is that Knox/Sollecito get to be in an article title too? Wow. Averell (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it might seem trivial, but actually, titles have been crucial in Wikipedia for years. Based on policies WP:Notability & WP:UNDUE, the title of an article has been assumed to pinpoint the notable subject. For years, people have removed information from articles, based on the title. For example, expect people to complain, "That article is about *Murder of Kercher* not the life problems of Knox, so I've removed all the off-topic details about Knox" (!?!?!). If "Knox" is not in the title, then expect complains when "Kercher" occurs in the article only 28 times, while "Knox" occurs 999 times, as an objection per WP:UNDUE. Again, that might seem unfair, but "Knox" and "Sollecito" should be in a title to justify extensive details about them (as no longer "off-topic"). I hope that helps explain why titles are crucial in Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legitimate spinoff article given the importance of the trial apart from the precipitating event as evidenced in numerous articles in media outlets worldwide, as well as intervention of government officials in both Italy and the US. Alternatively, spinoff individuals involved in the case as in other similar high-profile criminal cases. Christaltips (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)— Christaltips (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge with Murder of Meredith Kercher. POV fork that if merged can create a more thorough article. A "Murder of..." article ought to cover all events, including trial, and splitting this one out limits how much the original can do so. Grsz¹¹ 13:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in Wikipedia that bans text from a main article, where that text is expanded in more detail within a subarticle. That's why wikilinks exist: to allow easy cross-connections, between articles, as if they were sections of a single, integrated whole. It is not valid to claim that the article "Earth" has been unfairly separated with subarticles about continents and nations that limit what can be said about the Earth. Wikilinks re-connect the separate pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a murder case with much procedural complexity and factual complexity. It will become more complex as it winds its way through the appellate process. The case is of major international significance. There is not enough room in the main article to cover all the issues without making it too long for the reader. Breaking the topic down into a subarticle will allow for more thorough coverage of the issues to better inform the reader, than a single article will allow. PilgrimRose (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The differences between the article about the Murder of Merdith Kercher and this article about the process of Amanda Knox and Sollecito is a list of controversies, poorly or no sourced that contrast with the entire subject of the article, the process. Let's say I write an article about "Apples" and I put a section entitled "Negative aspects of apples" inserting content that says that apples are not healty because poor of proteins and other negative points. That section would be POV. Instead, if we have a neuter section on the "Features" we could put over there that there's a lot of fibers in apples (positive aspects), but nothing proteins (negative aspects). In this article we have the content from Murder of Meredith Kercher plus a section containing the so called "Various controversies" (POV and heavy unreferenced). With this content, this is sufficient the Murder of Meredith Kercher article.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - word "Controversy" is neutral: Generally, in Wikipedia the word "Controversy" has been used as POV-neutral (as opposed to the slanted word "Criticism" implying a anti/negative view). As indicated in the article-talkpage, sources are allowed to decry a trial as controversially "Too lenient" and insist that Knox/Sollecito be instantly hanged & burned, as was done in Florence during the 1400s. However, I checked & found no such "cry for hanging". I would have added more controversies, but I have been so busy restoring text, over & over, when illegally deleted "because it was so POV" and explaining, over & over, that Wikipedia does not delete text that has a viewpoint, but only when unverifiable or copyvio text. It is not the goal of Wikipedia to "document ultimate truth" but rather to include all major (verifiable) viewpoints, as an all-encompassing treatment, hence the word "encyclopedia" as encircling all views. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted, because honestly this case is still controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.17.233 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC) — 58.172.17.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art in the Contemporary World[edit]

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

Non-notable artistic group/project. Majority of sources are primary, the few secondary sources either barely mention the subject, or don't mention it at all (NY times article). --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 03:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE PR/self promo page. -- R. Mutt 1917 Talk 19:28, 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) 03:10, 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 01:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this project. Joe Chill (talk) 02:14, 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. MuZemike 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glover's Medicated Salt Cake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable livestock medicine. Article reads like spam, ironically, for a product that doesn't exist anymore. Borderline hoax. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 01:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added ((advert)) tag. The article may be worded oddly, but seems like a notable product both at the time and in an antique/collector's aftermarket capacity.Vulture19 (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Vulture19. It does however need cleanup. Joe407 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sundropman05 This is not a hoax. I wouldnt have spent my time on making up a page on something that didnt exist. I even have a picture of a original display rack that was used during the time period. I live in the town where the company was located and was able to buy the display rack for a high sum of money and found my information on "Google" where you said there wasnt any information. Just think if someone deleted your first page--Sundropman05 (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not hoax, needs cleanup and copy-editing however. warrior 4321 12:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the reason it "smelled funny" to me was that it looked like all the information (and grammar) came straight out of that catalog page you cited. It gave the impression that, while doing some sort of reserach, you decided to make an article about this product, which has "more medicine than any other salt cake." If it's a keep, I hope that someone can establish notability with some better references than a catalog page. WP:PRODUCT guides us to consider including the product in an article about the manufacturer, if the same can be shown to be notable. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 12:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment in regards to the comment on the article's talk page about the product's importance to the town of Bailey, North Carolina, doesn't that seem to indicate that the encyclopedia would be better served by having the product merged into a section of the town's article? --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 13:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that would be like having the State College, PA article merged into the Penn State article (the former certainly would not exist without the latter). Symbiotic entities can be notable exclusive of each other.Vulture19 (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response You're comparing Penn State to Glover's Medicated Salt Cake? I must be missing something. --SquidSK

^(1MC^•^log) 12:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was using that an example in response to the idea that something that is important to a location should only be included as a section of the location. Sorry for the confusion.Vulture19 (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although this is a well-made page, there are no reliable sources for these claims (as far as I can tell, only a catalog advertisement), and even though this product was once sold, there just seems to be no indication at all that it is notable. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:16, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Candidate for cleanup/improvement rather than deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retool. Google Books search for "Glover's Medicated" yields a few dozen results for a family of products, including Glover's Mange Medicine, Glover's Medicated Soap, and Glover's System of Massage, extant into the 1940s. While the notability of the salt cake alone is iffy, it should certainly be included as part of a larger article on the producer and its array of wares. bd2412 T 04:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment this would seem to indicate that an article about the manufacturer, rather than the individual product, would be more justified. "Information on products...should generally be included int he article on the company itself..." --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 12:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's what I was aiming to say. bd2412 T 20:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete for now since there are no secondary sources and the claims made for the product as if they were facts is not acceptable in an encyclopedia. An article on the company is a good idea however, as others have said. 76.126.9.65 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears that the only source used in this article is an ad for the product. Granted, it's an old ad, but it's still just an advertisement, not an inherently reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to I. N. Glover and keep. Books results for "Glover's Medicated" and "I. N. Glover" suggest that a referenceable article could be made about this business and its several product lines, of which this Salt Cake was but one of several. (Aside: oddly, salt cake redirects to sodium sulfate, rather than an article about commercially compounded salt lick blocks.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually (and this is just getting deeper and deeper), I'm unable to connect Irvin N. Glover and his salt cakes to the other "Glover's" products, which seem to arise with a New York veterinarian named H. Clay Glover, who came to prominence in the late 1880s with several books on dogs. If the two can be shown to be related somehow, then there is a basis for an article. Otherwise, this one should simply be deleted after all. bd2412 T 21:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Hmm. Perhaps we need an actual article about commercially produced salt blocks for livestock first; salt cake, as noted above, redirects to a page that does not discuss them. The illustrations would be useful for such an article if it is ever written. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:47, 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) 08:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Patrick Clarke[edit]

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

Resumé for a non-notable actor. Minor roles in minor tv-series. All information positive and unsourced. Damiens.rf 00:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - role in Eight is Enough clears the threshold of WP:ENT. Otto4711 (talk) 14:21, 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) 01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, bordering on strong keep. Regular role in Eight is Enough, plus dozens of other billed roles, clearly satisfying WP:ENT. Also dragged into the OJ Simpson case. [63]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:21, 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 no consensus. MuZemike 20:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris New[edit]

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

The article subject is non-notable and hardly any sources, (must check if any reliable) appear. The subject only appears to have played a role in "Prick up your ears". This goes against the notability requirement for actors which states Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. warrior 4321 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC) warrior 4321 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This has turned out to be a particularly well-known production, albeit for all the wrong reasons as Matt Lucas dropped out after his former partner killed himself. Give me time and I think I can find more sources. PatGallacher (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This source looks good, if somebody could find it offline. Abductive (reasoning) 05:24, 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) 01:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added imdb, but I don't see what he's done has been especially notable. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MPFreaker[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 07:26, 8 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) 01:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title Fight (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Lacks GHits of substance and zero GNEWS except local weekly mention. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google search unreliable sources, such as punknew.org or blogs. The only source is this article from The Weekender, which as ttonyb wrote, is insufficient to establish notability per WP:BAND. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this no tice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:27, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Mazcour[edit]

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

This biographical article fails to meet notability guidelines. While there are a couple trivial mentions in periodicals, the coverage in sources does not meet the standards set at WP:N, nor does it meet WP:CREATIVE. dissolve ^talk 07:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this director. Joe Chill (talk) 15:38, 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) 01:27, 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) 08:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expo 17[edit]

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

As this relates to a theoretical proposal for 2017 based on the successes of a "world fair" in 1967, this does not meet the requirements of WP:ORG. There are no relevant matches in Google News, so the issue of notability is unlikely to be addressed. Ash (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Expo 2017 was a plank in the platform of a mayoralty candidate of the recent municipal election in Montreal... though this article does not appear to be about that. 70.29.209.121 (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Expo 2017. There are lots of reliable news sources available. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 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) 01:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a fairly important group in Canadian politics. Sources should be easy to find. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:11, 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. The re-write has enproved it enough to save it Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Branyan[edit]

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

The article does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Ash (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 23:20, 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) 01:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do exist about this person, but this article is written in a purely promotional style with no sources provided. If someone wanted to write a proper encyclopedia article about the subject, they would basically have to start from scratch, which they should be free to do if they believe they can properly establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The references listed at this Google News search ought to be added to the article. - Eastmain (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that, as written, the article can be speedied as spam. That said, it's a short enough stub that I think it can be rescued, if anybody wants to. I've tagged it for such, and we'll see. Ray^Talk 19:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I rewrote the article but still not sure if it meets WP:GNG would like to hear other opinions, I could go either way. He seems like a big name in Christian comedy and his writing and starring in Crazy Love may put him over the top. J04n(talk page) 17:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The version as rewritten by J04n is much better. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I click the Google news link at the top of the AFD, and this comedian gets coverage. AFD is not the place to clean things up. If you have a problem with an article, tag and discuss it on the article's talk page. Dream Focus 19:38, 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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Beeler[edit]

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

The article fails to meet WP:BIO and with no matches on Google News the issue of notability is unlikely to ever be addressed. Ash (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is incorrect in the statement about Google News. A current news search gets two hits and 21 of the hits from an archive search are about this Rolf Beeler, with most of them providing substantial coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Concur with Phil Bridger that there are ample Google News hits and if one actualy reads the articles, it's quite clear the coverage is significant enough to establish notability. I'll also point to this book identifying him as a "highly regarded Swiss affineur". -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 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) 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage identified by Phil Bridger and Whpq. Blessed are the cheesemakers, for they shall survive AFDs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Phil Bridger and Co. Warrah (talk) 13:21, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Coackley[edit]

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

No indication of notability, or reference in article. Shadowjams (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. If anything notable happens to him then it can be recreated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 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) 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) 08:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Livingspanish[edit]

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

Article does not meet the requirements of WP:ORG. There are no relevant sources in Google News. Ash (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 22:21, 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) 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not an easy one to research ("living Spanish" being a phrase that occurs naturally in prose), but from reviewing the many GNews results for "Living Spanish" I can find none to suggest that this organization has received substantial coverage in reliable sources, and therefore don't think it meets our notability guidelines. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:35, 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. The reasons for deletion here are stronger and more policy-based than the reasons for retention. MuZemike 17:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lizy Coleman[edit]

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

Non-notable athletic trainer. None of the given references support notability or even mention Coleman. PDCook (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What exactly is this woman's claim to notability? Vartanza (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is the page author believes that Coleman's involvement with a professional sports team makes her notable, but seeing as Coleman is not an athlete, WP:GNG is at play here and Coleman clearly fails that. PDCook (talk) 04:01, 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) 01:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 19:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Clearly meets WP:GNG Legal exception explained below, meeting WP:BIO. Coleman as a noted in the guidelines of notability is presented in the manner of leaders of support in the sporting arena. The references indicate positions of notability, the results of the supported athletes is the determinant for notability. HIPAA guidelines prohibit the naming of specific patients without their consent. Clearly notable Olympic and Professional athletes would not want the specifics of their injuries known.

This is the first in a series of Professional ATC's who's performances go under the notability radar but without whom there would be a vacuum for the talent that steps on the ice, field, pitch or green each day.

Just as Caddies are listed as notable persons for the professional Golfers they support, professional ATC's should receive the credit and recognition they are due.

Clearly the people/persons who created the Carolina Railhawks listing thought Coleman was important enough to list Paul9194558787 (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, I would like to point out that none of the given references even mention Coleman. PDCook (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -

Elizabeth Coleman Raleigh, NC License Number: 1184 Effective: 2/6/2006 Renewal: January 31, 2010

Requires search modification for source document from Coleman licensed by State of North Carolina 24.211.165.40 (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It may well be true that trainers deserve more recongition, but that is not the role of Wikipedia. Instead, one should go out into the world and change it so that trainers receive their due, and then bring that information back to Wikipedia. Ms. Coleman, no matter how important she may be, does not have the media coverage (yet!) to establish notability Vartanza (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- In a world where print media is succumbing to a rapid death, the role of Wikipedia as a source of information about relevant individuals is critical to the devlopment of various arenas of society. Additionally I am unsure how to list relevant TV appearances on Fox Soccer Channel and upon USLLive.com webcasts where Coleman was clearly visible and attending to the tasks which make her notable. Paul9194558787 (talk) 02:34, 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 merge to Five Star. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Court[edit]

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

House that has no claim of meeting WP:N other than being the house where a celeb lived back in the late 80s. Delete Secret ^account 16:16, 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) 01:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Five Star. I agree that the house does not appear to have any independent notability. Ray^Talk 19:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Clear WP:NOTINHERITED. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage in Hello magazine and elsewhere seems to indicate notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that all of these claims to notability relate to the pop group, not the building they live in. WP:BLP1E advises that people notable for only one event should go into the article about the event, and similarly, I'd argue that buildings notable only for only one lot of famous residents should go into the article about the famous residents. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:27, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapster[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Only one reference to prove that it even existed. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:32, 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) 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is why products need to be speedy A7. Miami33139 (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with haste. Maybe somebody should spin off a "promote your software" wiki. Ray^Talk 19:32, 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) 08:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Business intelligence consulting services[edit]

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

The content of this article is an unnecessary duplicate of Business intelligence and does not mention consulting services. Delete or merge any content considered valuable back to Business intelligence. Ash (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's written as an essay with no references and the material really isn't suitable for a merge. - Whpq (talk) 17:41, 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) 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreadable essay that's likely meant to promote some consulting business: a complex undertaking for most large organisations. Large organisations typically have numerous (often in the hundreds of) information systems that help them to operate their business. These systems are designed in the most part to provide for transaction oriented performance. For example, when you buy an item at a supermarket the point of sale system (see EFTPOS) is optimised to handle the high number of small transactions that pass through the system in small, frequent bursts. Systems such as this are often referred to as OLTP - on-line transaction processing. OLTP systems are generally not designed to provide management with the summary information that is often needed to make decisions within an organisation..... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic jargoncruft. Ray^Talk 19:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 21:40, 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) 08:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hemming[edit]

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

Photojournalist who fails WP:CREATIVE. Can't find any reputable sources critiquing his work, nor anything which states that his exhibition at the Smithsonian was pivotal in any way. SMC (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —SMC (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —SMC (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 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) 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage either. Ray^Talk 19:30, 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. no consensus for deletion JForget 21:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riyadh Shikawi[edit]

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

The attempt to find more reliable sources has failed. The merge proposal has been on the page for ages now. No signs of interest or explanations are given on both talk pages. This article here is solely base on the primary source and the fact that this name was on the FBI list for a while. For me it looks 99 % sure that it is Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi and in this case i do not think there is much to merge. Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi has already a section about the rendition, maybe just the fact that he was on the FBI list and then delete and redirect. If we speak about two different individuals than this article should be deleted because it fails WP:BIO notability and my attempt to find reliable secondary sources have failed. IQinn (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "the fact that this name was on the FBI list for a while" seems to miss the fact he was arrested by the CIA, handed over to Jordan, put in Guantanamo Bay....he's somebody a lot more happened to than simply "his name appeared on a list for a while". And generally when the FBI issues a terrorism alert, Wikipedia (rightly) adds an article on the subjects. However, if it is shown that it's the same as the other article, then Merge is appropriate. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Arrested by the CIA, handed over to Jordan, put in Guantanamo Bay..." not in the article so far. Where are the sources for that? Would it be a sign that they are the same person? There is nothing more than that he was on the FBI list for a while. Could you please add the sources if you have? IQinn (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to the article says, a Yemeni who is currently held at Guantanamo...He was named as a suspect in a Yemen plot...the FBI discovered that he had been arrested by the CIA and rendered to Jordan. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that's all not sourced. IQinn (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not the basis for an AFD, it's the basis for an ((unsourced)) tag. I don't mind you adding such a tag - and if nothing can be found in a few months, revisiting the idea of an AFD. I do however mind the idea of deleting an article about an apparently very notable person because people are too lazy to fact-check. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know they are notable? The creator may say they are notable, but I could create an article saying "TParis00ap is president of the world from 1987-Present". Such a claim would suggest I am notable and by your logic the article should stay until such a time as WP:RS are not found in a few months. WP:V states that the threshold for inclusion is verfiability, not truth. If the "very notable" assertion were sourced so it could be proven, than you would have an argument. But unless it can be verfied, then that sentance cannot support WP:N. Also WP:V puts the burden of sources on the content creator, not the deletion nominator. Unsourced material may be questioned and suggested for deletion.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information was added by a fairly trustworthy editor with 2000+ edits on en.WP - I would give him the benefit of the doubt, although it is legitimate to ask him to add citations and footnotes - WP did not used to work that way, and many editors are/were unaware of the need for footnoting each claim when many of "these" articles were created. Looking at this government publication, this book, and a Google News Archive search...he seems to be who the article claims he is. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{edit conflict) It is amazing. How many people are there now, that you have attacked in an uncivil way - whenever somebody nominated an article from your project - to Afd for discussion? More than ten? There was time enough to fix it. And you could have fixed it now and you still have time to fix it. This article has been a problem for years. Do not waste time with attacking people. IQinn (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iqinn: I don't see any apparent attacks about this subject from User:Sherurcij, but if you know of any I would suggest you bring it to WP:DR instead of here. This discussion should be about the subject, not about incivility by any of the contributors. Let's all refrain from personal attacks here please. I'm not sure if the "too lazy" comment was interpreted by you as an attack, but I hope you understand he did not say you were lazy. He could have meant the content creator was lazy not to add the source. Please always WP:AGF. I suggest a cookie of peace?--TParis00ap (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, TParis is correct that my reference to "laziness" is a general inference of an "unreferenced fact". You, me, the creator, the last person to view the article, we all should have spent 20 minutes adding references. We didn't. But that's cause for a clean-up of the article, not its deletion. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way i did check more than 20 minutes and when there is nothing to add than it's time for AfD IQinn (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've both acted in in good faith. User:Iqinn probobly did spend more than 20 minutes and did his best to find sources. Most folks have different techniques of finding sources and some techniques are better in certain circumstances than others. I find tweaking google searches even a little will produce significantly different results. It's all about having the gut feeling about how to type a search to get the desired results. Apparently User:Sherurcij has found some creditable sources that should be included if we can work it out. I'll see what I can do with what was provided and add the others to "External links". [[WP:V] requires claims to be verified, but it is obvious from the sources provided in this debate that the subject is notable. But unless we can figure out a way to add the sources, we can't meet WP:V. Luckily, WP:V doesn't require WP:RS to be easily verified, only that it is possible. I'll work it a little.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. The user's argument for keep is based on unsourced claims. They are not independantly verifiable. The nom already tried to find sources and could not. User:Sherurcij is suggesting that if someone wrote an autobiogaphy with claims of notability, they should be kept. As far as I know, that is only enough to save someone from WP:CSD, not WP:AfD. Apologies if that is not the case, but that is how I read it.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made some changes with the sources suggested by User:Sherurcij but I still support my delete !vote. I made a good faith effort to fix references and use the ones provided. Some of the material provided I did not have the capability to add. However, I would like to note that many of the sources have minute mentions of the subject as an associate of AL-RABEEI which would not support WP:N requirement for significant coverage.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Sherurcij, and the sources he has linked above. The article meets WP:N. Cerebellum (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check the sources? Most are trivial mentions that he is an aquaintance of someone else or that he was part of 8 other people removed from the FBI list. Almost none have significant coverage and almost all are trivial mentions. I only say most because I cannot read the books but the snippets suggest the same trivial mentions. WP:N states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." User:Sherurcij has proven he exists, not that he is notable.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not suggest he was a tailor who made a suit of clothes for notable people, they suggest he was a terrorist and the subject of an international manhunt. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got no argument from me there. But they don't say why he was significant or more important than any other terrorist out there. Should we have a page for anyone who has ever held a gun for Al Queda or the Taliban? We need to know why he was significantly more important than any other terrorist.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda, perhaps. The Taliban, obviously not. Should we have an article on every bank robber? No. Should we have an article on every bank robber who was on the FBI's Most Wanted list and triggered an international manhunt? Yes. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you would have sources saying "He robbed a bank". In this case, we do not have a source that says what he did. Only that he was an aquaintance of someone else and the FBI wanted him.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:34, 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) 01:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy the GNG; difficulty in categorizing reasons for coverage not grounds for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is difficulty in coverage not grounds for deletion? The key idea for WP:GNG is significant coverage. This subject does not have any significant coverage. He has quite a few trivial mentions focusing on his removal from the FBI list and nothing else. Please check the sources. WP:V states that the basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We cannot verify anything significant about this person. This may also be a WP:BLP issue (not well versed in BLP). There are quite a few unsourced claims in there. If the unsourced libeus is removed and the trivial sourced content is removed - we no longer have even a stub.--v/r - T P 03:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Impossibility to find sources to verify is grounds for deletion; difficulty with the sources is not. And yes, we should have an article about every individual on the most wanted list: that's a clear sign of national-level importance as a suspect or criminal. The FBI is the appropriate agency to determine that, not Wikipedia. Though they may sometimes jump to unwarranted conclusions, nonetheless they count as an adequately RS. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi. This article asserts that Riyadh Shikawi's real name is Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi and links to that page, which is a redirect to Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi. If they are the same person, they don't need two separate articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Sheru.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:05, 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 discussion on merging can be made locally on the article's talk page. Otherwise, no other arguments or commentary in support of deletion have been brought forward. MuZemike 20:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Athletic Foundation[edit]

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

This article is incredibly bias, to the point in which a rewrite would not solve the problem. I have already removed several more egregious violations of WP:NPOV, however it will not be enough. Also, the lack of sources is highly troubling, especially due to its connecting with the whole Juan Cole incident. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 18:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect The article is biased because the majority of the article is not about the subject but rather the scandal. The content should be merged into Jack Abramoff. There is not enough notability of the organization without the scandal to support an article. It should be included with the rest of the information about the scandal and not a stand alone article.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you give the author too much credit. The article is bias because it was written to be so. Why else would the person be "admitted felon Jack Abramoff." The author wanted to make the man out to be a villain, and the article reflects that. I disagree with the merge, it needs to be done over, with legitimate sources and NPOV language. I am neutral on the redirect. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 16:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has POV issues, but seems an acceptable subject for an article. The 'Outcome' section needs to be cut down - some of it isn't directly related to this group, and is more about Abramoff. But the group itself seems notable enough. It's worth noting that the main article on the Abramoff scandal is pretty long already, and we have plenty of articles on similar groups listed at List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations - it would be completely impractical to merge them all into one article, so they're kept separate for length reasons. Robofish (talk) 14:21, 8 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) 01:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jack Abramoff, which is the real topic of the article. Nobody cares about the name of a fake charity. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability separate from Abramoff has been established. This article should be the overlap between the Abramoff scandal re funding and how the money was actually spent in Isreal, etc. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 08:58, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erlangen Sharks[edit]

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

This a totally non-notable American football club. The highest level it has competed in so far is the fifth highest (or second lowest) division of American football leagues in Germany. Needless to say, that's not a professional league. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Petepetepetepete (talk) 11:55, 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, Tim Song (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Looks like a nn, local, amateur club. Ray^Talk 19:29, 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) 08:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Willis[edit]

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

Restored as a contested prod per request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests#Harry_Willis, but I can't find evidence of notability. Gsearch for "Harry Willis" turns up a lot of false positives. Add in "Ardèche" and you get 13 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this folk tale has not been documented in reliable sources. It does appear to be one told in the local area, as evidenced by mentions such as this, but that doe snot establish this as a notable folk tale. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 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) 01:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jokes locals play on tourists generally aren't notable, and this looks especially NN. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)
Delete: Per above.Joe Chill (talk) 22:45, 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 no consensus. Weighing up both sides, I think there's no consensus on whether he's notable, as though the keeps are more numerous they're also not strong. Fences&Windows 04:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toby McFarlan Pond[edit]

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

Nothing to assert notability per WP:CREATIVE. JaGa^talk 22:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - his images have appeared in the WSJ, NY Times, W, and other well-known magazines, see here. He's also done cover art for Bjork, see here and there. However, I can't many sources about him in a quick Internet search, other than the WSJ. I'm not sure if that's enough. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the cites. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The paucity of sources about him is a sticking point, but his work seems to be high-profile enough to warrant an article. Cerebellum (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 8 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) 01:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable enough, and searching for coverage of photographers is arduous enough to allow more time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely showing up in major newspapers is not, IMO, evidence of a major body of work receiving significant coverage. There's a difference between being a successful professional (which the subject is), and being notable, in the sense that they receive significant coverage in sources independent of the subject (WP:BIO), or in the sense that they make significant contributions to the knowledge of the human race (WP:PROF, WP:CREATIVE). That coverage being lacking, I don't think we should keep this article. Ray^Talk 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by Bearian. Edward321 (talk) 03:41, 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 Merged I've moved the article to Caritas Indonesia and then redirected it to Caritas (charity) as recommended below. Since Caritas Germany is structured essentially the same way, and the full 7 days ran on this, this seemed the thing to do.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Caritas-the Archdiocese of Semarang[edit]

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

The article is unreferenced and, as far as I can tell, unreferencable. I was going to copy edit it, or rewrite it, but... I can't figure out what it's trying to say. Maybe we can merge this to one of the Indonesia earthquake/tsunami articles or something, if anyone can decipher what the point of the article is.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Caritas (charity). I'm not sure there's enough information out there to justify this as a separate article, but here's a few links anyway:

[64]

[65]

[66]

If we do keep it, I suggest moving to Indonesian Caritas, I'm not sure what the point of the archdiocese in the title is.Cerebellum (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan, to me.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:57, 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) 01:07, 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) 08:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martien Mulder[edit]

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

Again, not enough coverage or any awards to merit WP:CREATIVE. JaGa^talk 22:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much in the way of sourcing and I couldn't find more....Vartanza (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 8 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) 01:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find evidence of significant coverage either. Ray^Talk 19:24, 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) 08:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annelise Phillips[edit]

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

No proof of notability per WP:CREATIVE. JaGa^talk 22:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this photographer. Joe Chill (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 8 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) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any such coverage either. Ray^Talk 19:23, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tangpange[edit]

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

Non notable neologism. Prod removed so moved to AFD. noq (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: made up drink. Joe Chill (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:per nom. Speedy? --KenWalker | Talk 03:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Armbrust (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made up. Tangpange is only found on Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 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 redirect. I'm ignoring all rules on this non admin closure (gasp), as a consensus has been made, and leaving it at AFD for 6 more days will just be pointless. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish euro coins[edit]

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

Does there really need to be an article for something which doesn't exist?... Teealooko (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [67] may be of use, but I don't see it as reliable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Those images are of privately produced pattern coins and are purely speculative. At the time, shortly after the first euro coins had been put into circulation, a lot of people were trying to collect a full set. These "coins" were aimed at that market. Obviously that's not the same as designs approved by the Swedish government - indeed, the existence of those patterns makes it rather unlikely that the Swedish government would choose similar designs for its euro coins if and when it adopts the euro in the future. Pfainuk talk 10:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sweden and the euro, which already includes the same content. EALacey (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Armbrust (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Teamtheo (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EALacey's sensible suggestion above. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect - same reason as given by EALacey.Tris2000 (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I'd go one further than EALacey and redirect it to Sweden and the euro#Swedish euro coins: it looks to be a copy and paste job. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Sweden and the euro or Sweden and the euro#Swedish euro coins per WP:CRYSTAL. Pfainuk talk 10:24, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vantage Pointe Condominium[edit]

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

Notability. My search provided no major third party sources that weren't advertisements. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the very in-depth subject of secondary sources [68][69], the prime criteria for WP:GNG. The sources indicate it is San Diego's largest condominium building, very significant for a major city with a high retirement population. Ironically, I found these articles from the nom's own "My search" link.--Oakshade (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Because of your limited search that didn't show significant coverage negates all the significant coverage found elsewhere? --Oakshade (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he eliminated press releases and the like to find third party sources, but I'm not sure... Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Try searching by "Vantage Pointe" "San Diego". Abductive (reasoning) 03:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News sources pointed out are routine placements in the local real estate section. The real estate section of the large paper in any large city will have these semi-promotional articles every weekend. Miami33139 (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles say things like Vantage Pointe is a huge fiasco and is returning people's escrow payments, and becoming a rental building. This is far from routine. Abductive (reasoning) 07:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are not at all "routine placements" and not even in real estate sections. --Oakshade (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of condo projects across the United States are converting to apartments. This is a normal business decision in a real estate downturn. During the bubble, hundreds of apartment complexes kicked out all their tenants and converted to condos. These are routine business decisions. They might make the news, but they are not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not every condominium receives in-depth coverage from multiple sources as this one has. And the coverage of this particular project is on the extremely large scale of both the building and the real estate debacle. That's why the coverage, not just "it's there."--Oakshade (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire. A condo? No, no. Watergate, sure. Vantage Pointe is just another set of buildings, however. Given current financial circumstances, we'd need another encyclopedia to cover all the residence-turned-rental dwellings; this is in no way encyclopedic. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Condos can pass WP:GNG as this one has just like any other topic. If you'd like to change WP:GNG so it excludes condos, you can propose it on its talk page instead of pushing a new agenda on an individual AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my mention of Watergate. This condo is manifestly not Watergate, and is not notable. I push no "new agenda" I merely seek to reduce cruft and clutter which fails Notability so resoundingly. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Condos that are not Watergate can pass WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG. This one passes WP:NOTABILTIY and WP:GNG. You've offered absolutely no valid argument of how it doesn't pass those guidelines. And sorry but "It's not Watergate" is not a valid argument. --Oakshade (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that its not notable. My Watergate example was to indicate that I do consider some condos notable. What is unclear to you? Subject fails WP:N. Sorry to have confused you with examples and commentary. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why you think it fails WP:N is totally unclear to everyone here. You have so far completely failed to explain how this article "Fails WP:N". Just by typing in boldface "Fails WP:N" doesn't make it true. Since you've provided no supporting argument to that claim, it appears you have no valid argument to delete this article. --Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that you're the only one badgering me about it, then. Not notable is self explanatory; its not... notable. You're asking me to prove a negative. Your claim seems to be that its big, and it has a few mentions in the papers. Its going to rent from condo, which isn't even much of a news story, let alone a notable event. It garnered a completely non notable "ward" from a local paper, sort of a local raspberry. None of this makes the place notable. If it has no grounds for notability, it is, by default, not notable. In short, you have failed to offer any rationale for notability which I find plausible. I am now done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you are saying, but when you add in the fact that it is in the top ten tallest buildings in San Diego, I think we're okay keeping it. Abductive (reasoning) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's a valid argument for notability. IMO, its just not quite there. I mean, San Deigo, not the world. It might be part of a package for notability, but all of the rationales are just below the threshold for me, sorry. Looks like a possible keep anyway, clearly there are dissenting views. Thanks for taking the time to post a rationale for my consideration; it does make me waver a tad, but ultimately is not persuasive enough to me, personally. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I feel it is a borderline case too. The problem with skyscrapers is that if we set the notability bar much higher, then each skyscraper would have to have a special claim of notability. For example, I just created an article on the Plaza on DeWitt (because it was in the news for a fire). I was really stumped for anything encyclopedic about it until I found out was the first building on earth to use the tubular contruction method later used for the World Trade Center. Abductive (reasoning) 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; there is a balance between too inclusive and too exclusive; this is clearly one of the borderline cases but it does appear to be leaning towards a keep at this juncture. I just cannot in good conscience state that I find the arguments for notability persuasive. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Vantage Pointe is a huge unsold disaster, with much coverage of its failure. For its appallingly bad architecture, it "won" this year's Grand Onion from the San Diego Architectural Foundation. Abductive (reasoning) 16:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - controversial, big buildings are notable; the several reliable sources prove its notability. Bearian (talk)
P.S. While of local interest mostly, I think it would pass this essay. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Claims of importance, reliable coverage in non-trivial sources? That's my general standard, and also the community's. If it can be covered accurately in an encyclopedic style (e.g. there are sources) then it can be a useful encyclopedia article to someone, even if it's not at all an important topic to me personally. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The community standard includes significant not just reliable sourcing, and the claims of importance must be matched to verification. I don't see that here. Miami33139 (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed; the mere "claim" of notability only precludes speedy deletion - in order to be a "keep" on Afd you must hold the view that the claim is valid. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor mentioned "Claims of importance" and "reliable coverage in non-trivial sources", which this topic has. Pretending that the editor only felt the "claim" of notability is the sole reason they kept the article and then arguing against it is pure straw man. --Oakshade (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are addressing, and frankly I don't care. Claiming someone here is "pretending" is a personal attack, which I advise you strike. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm to assume that you feel the editor did demonstrate more than the "mere 'claim'" of notabiltiy and supported their argument by addressing WP:NOTABILITY, the "reliable coverage in non-trivial sources."? That you completely omitted the latter in your rebuttal seemed to indicate you felt the former was their only argument, despite both arguments being made very clear. --Oakshade (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would be entirely wrong in that assumption. I saw no problem with Sancho Mandoval's other reason for keep; however his rationale for assertion of notability is contrary to the standards applied in Afd. I therefore commented only on the section which required comment, as did Miami33139. You are not "catching" anyone in "pretending" there is no other rationale; you are displaying a rather shocking amount of WP:ABF. Neither my post nor Miami's was a "rebuttal " at all, but rather kindly meant advice about AFd. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No ABF. You only attacked the editor's "mere 'claim' of notability" and went on to say "you must hold the view that the claim is valid" when in fact that's what the editor did in the 2nd part of their argument, which you ignored. That's a fact, not an assumption. Sorry you're shocked.--Oakshade (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ignored the second part of their argument because there was no flaw with it - no issue, no problem, and hence no reason to comment on it. Is that finally clear to you, or are you still labouring under the misapprehension that there is something nefarious about the fact that Miami and I saw an logic flaw in one argument, about which we commented, and no flaw in the second argument, about which we remained silent? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok y'all, can you keep it somewhat calm and civil please? I see this becoming more and more heated. Not good. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, I'm not sure why my comment provoked such a semantic debate. I just feel like we do expect articles to somehow claim importance if we're to keep them at AFD. There has to be something that separates it from the rest. You could find plenty of non-trivial coverage of basically every regular season sports game ever played at a high level, tens of thousands of such games a year, yet we'd delete a WP article on them unless it was actually an important game for some reason or another. Maybe this isn't currently codified into policy but it seems like it's the standard people apply at AFD. That's what I meant. But rather than turn this AFD into more of a trainwreck maybe if you really want to debate this with me, use my talk page? --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply a misunderstanding by Oakshade - the point, rather lost now, is that there is a distinction between "claim of notability" and "meets notability criteria" - the first, which you cite, is a speedy criteria, the other is an Afd criteria and has pages and pages of guidelines. This being an Afd, it is not enough to have a "claim of notability" - that claim must be supported by the cites given. If you have any questions please do message me on my talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep--I found some coverage (see this) that convcinces me of notability. For starters, it's HUGE. Also, it has won an award, according to this article: the "Grand Onion, for failing to establish a human-scale element at street level." Drmies (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A 41 story building is generally notable--it is always possible to find sources for its planning and zoning and construction-- especially if it's one of the largest building of its type in a major city. In this case, it seems to have been a notable financial failure also, & there's enough news coverage for that at least. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
Keep. DGG sums up my position well - it's notable for several things, including its size and failure, especially since there is coverage for both. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Abductive and DGG. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:20, 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 keep. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fully original research. Only two "references" are forum posts and open Wikis. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible. Blatant ripoff of the TVTropes listing. This is amusing: They link to TVTropes, only to make this listing as TVTropes-esque as aspossible. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per addition of sources. I took my hammer to the list, as it was almost totally unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article should be made less like a TV Tropes page, not only the concept but the exact name was in use years before TV Tropes was founded. See this article from 1995, for example. Maybe this is not the most significant topic, but it is the kind of pop culture topic Wikipedia can do reasonably well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:OR. Given that it has survived Afd once before with the idea that it would "improve" yet no reliable sourcing has appeared, I suggest it has had its grace period. Tropes is where this sort of stuff belongs. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Keep per sourcing found by optimists who thought that sourcing could be found. Well done. The phenomenon of rapid aging of children on TV shows isn't confined to soap operas. In fact, it's been the exception, rather than the rule, for a baby to age normally in most prime-time shows of the last 30 years (e.g., Murphy Brown, Family Ties, Family Matters, etc.). Sourcing may be more difficult to find because of a lack of common name for this TV cliche, but it's discussed in nearly any book about a show upon which this happens, and revisited in entertainment magazines. As with sports, Wikipedia sets a lower bar when it comes to sourcing, but sourcing can be found for it. Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting your point. You seem to be saying "keep" but then your comments indicate you think this is WP:OR. If it lacks a common name, then the "neologism" objection holds. If sourcing "can be found" then that rather optimistic view has yet to be demonstrated. Neither of your arguments bodes well for "keep"; rather what you say are arguments for delete. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right. However, I don't believe that this is incurably OR. I accept your challenge to find references, and if I don't find any, then you have my permission to delete the article. Mandsford (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you find references that discuss the effect, not just illustrate instances, please let me know and I will change my vote to keep.Northwestgnome (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep due to new sources which use and explain the expression thus establishing notability by WP rules. Saddly since it is a fun article and informative. However WP's policy forbidding original research needs to be upheld here or else anything anyone observes watching TV could become an article. How about one on characters wearing glasses or not through the years? Or good guys' and bad guys' cars? (On Columbo the bad guys mostly drove Mercedes.) Northwestgnome (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not think the article is too bad (I removed many of the examples attempting to improve things) but it is probably not notable enough to require its own article. Notable instances will surely be mentioned in the articles on the show in question - if that instance is notable. There's probably no need to invent a name for the situation and then group together various examples. I can't imagine people speculating about the concept and then searching on it in WP to learn about what it is. Format (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The name "Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome" was not invented here; it predates the existence of Wikipedia. I've found reliable sources using the term dating back to 1995 [70], and Usenet citations back to 1993 [71]. Wikipedia only dates back to 2001. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies and great work at improving the article. Format (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major plot device in the genre, though I am not sure about the proper title. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that some additional references have been added to support the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it has little or no sourcing, it still explains the continuity/trivia of a character's age, and is therefore relevant. If not kept, then perhaps merged into the soap opera article.W93 (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Metropolitan90 is doing a great job sourcing the article; this is definitely a term widely used in TV Guide and soap-related magazines and books. I will jump in to do some further copyediting, but the topic is certainly notable enough for a Wikipedia entry.— TAnthony^Talk 17:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DGG, it a commonly used plot device in the genre. Dream Focus 06:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a commonly used plot device in soap opera. The article needs improvement , but I've seen sources that could be used to establish notability such as the 2004 book Serial Monogamy: Soap Opera, Lifespan, and the Gendered Politics of Fantasy by Christine Scodari. The book defines Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome and provides examples of instances the plot device is used. Rocksey (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a coined term/phrase, has happened in many a soap opera and is usually exclusive to them, it's been mentioned in various media sources.Raintheone (talk) 22:55, 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 delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putback Amendment[edit]

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

Non-notable legislative proposal for Illinois that hasn't received significant coverage in the media. Fences&Windows 00:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First two references aren't reliable and independent. The Tribune piece is an opinion piece and so isn't really helpful to establish anything beyond what the journalist said in the opinion piece. Also it only has a trivial passing mention therein. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This proposal doesn't seem to have advanced to the initiative stage. The Proquest newspaper archive shows no mention of it. Will Beback talk 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The amendment should probably need to qualify for the ballot before it is considered notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been the subject of a great deal of non-trivial news coverage.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article cites only one item of news coverage in mainstream media (WCIA television), and Google News finds only that one item plus one blog entry. If this amendment makes it to the ballot, I'm sure there will be plenty of news coverage then and the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Metro90 on this one. It's interesting, it's intriguing... but it's not on the ballot. Frankly, I'll be surprised if they find 278,000 or 500,000 people who would sign, since it calls for so many different things (including getting rid of the state House and Senate in favor of a unicameral state legislature) that most people would not consider to be a pressing need. I see this as no different than someone proposing a vote on whether the Chicago area should separate from the rest of Illinois. Mandsford (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G5: page created on 2009-12-10 by sockpuppet of User:JohnBambenek in violation of indefinite ban on 2007-03-04. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JohnBambenek. See also User:CharlesJohnson22/JohnBambenek while it still exists: created by same sockpuppet and claims he "is the principal author of the Putback Amendment, and amendment to the Constitution of the State of Illinois to reform the Illinois General Assembly." And obviously, completely non-neutral, unsupported, self-promotional article with no evidence of notability. --Closeapple (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G5. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 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.