< 22 December	24 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 keep. The Flying Saucer (song), Santa And The Satellite, Energy Crisis '74, and Mr. Jaws, probably merge the rest. Fences&Windows 01:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Ford (A Special Report)[edit]

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

While the musician Dickie Goodman himself appears to be notable enough for an article (thus nixing WP:SD), and as a Dementite myself I recognize the notability of the topic of Novelty records, a single or album by Goodman would not appear to meet the WP:General notability guideline and in particular lack "significant coverage," or the coverage needed for a "reasonably detailed article" of WP:MUSIC. Article is an orphan lacking sources. Might be WP:Original research, somewhat WP:INDISCRIMINATE in that content is limited to a brief summary of the single (analogous to WP:PLOT?) and a list of what it samples. Web search finds some copies for sale, Wikipedia mirrors, listings in two printed price guides (it's worth about $6.00 evidently). Not sure the content merits merging to Goodman, or if a redirect would really be needed. Шизомби (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also Goodman songs and albums with the same flaws identified above. Some of them mention they are "flops," "hard to find," articles contain info about unsourced rumors. I think this is all of them. Please give these orphans a nice warm home for Christmas by the Deletion yule log:

Most of them can be merged, but Keep The Flying Saucer (song), which inaugurated the novelty genre of "sampling" songs. If I'm not mistaken, it was a Top 10 hit back in the mid 1960s. There are others that made the Top 40 as well, although most of these did not. Kind of an interesting nomination-- are there any songs from this artist that you don't want deleted? Mandsford (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect anything useful from these articles to Dickie Goodman. Keep The Flying Saucer (song) as it was probably his most successful. TheRetroGuy (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the five Top 40 hits from the list above [1]. As you can see, "Mr. Jaws" reached #4, and Flying Saucer reached #3 (back in 1956, also "before my time", not the mid-60s). Energy Crisis '74 and Santa And The Satellite were both in the Top 40 at one time. The other hit doesn't have an article, although it was a remix of Flying Saucer, if I'm not mistaken. If those four examples are taken out of the nomination, I'd support a merge of the remainder. Mandsford (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If RS exist to verify the notability of "The Flying Saucer" as inaugurating a genre and also contain sufficient significant coverage to write a "reasonably detailed article" about the song, I would not oppose keeping that one. If all there is to say about it is that it was his most successful, it's probably better handling it WP:WITHIN-(a WP essay, but sensible) Goodman's article (which needs attention) or one on novelty sampling songs as a genre, if there are enough RS for that. I'll try looking for more extensive info on it, time permitting. When "merge" is being suggested, what content is it that is being suggested for merge? There's already an extensive discography in his article which includes all of these. Шизомби (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Flying Saucer (song), Santa And The Satellite, Energy Crisis '74, and Mr. Jaws, all of which were top 40 singles. Close nomination as to all the others, because nominating articles about 40 or more songs at once, including both hits and non-hits, makes it difficult to review them all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several of those songs charted in the US, meeting the requirements of WP:NSONG. A list this large is going to require massive amounts of time to exercise the due diligence required. I think each nomination should merit it's own AfD discussion.. Vulture19 (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merely charting does not meet the requirements of the GNG and NSONG, both of which require "significant coverage." Meeting notability for a song means meeting both WP:N and WP:MUSIC, not one just or the other, and I continue to believe these meet neither. NSONG states that charting indicates it is "probably notable," not that it is notable. It goes on to say, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only ["is only," not "is probably only"] appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be ["should be," not "should probably be"] merged to articles about an artist or album." A Google Books search and Amazon "search inside" has a manageable number of hits on Goodman, so it doesn't strike me as unreasonably difficult to review all the songs at once. I don't understand why so many substubs were created for each song when the parent article Dickie Goodman is stub/start with multiple issues and novelty record is stub/start and undersourced. The place to start is by building up his article with good sources, and if it turns out there enough RS and enough significant coverage to spin out other articles, then that's the time to do it. I'm willing to consider "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator" with regard to "The Flying Saucer" at least, if people do address it by editing now; I will try working on adding sources to the Goodman article. Шизомби (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Flying Saucer (song), reserve opinion on all other songs. Song charted and there is independent coverage of the song in Time magazine [2] from 1956. Vulture19 (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Buchanan and Goodman On Trial, reserve opinion on others not already commented on. It appears that after being sued for The Flying Saucer (song), this was the response song that charted. Info is sporadic, a couple of hits are [3], [4], and the gBooks hits, [5], hint at information that are WP:RS, but info does not appear on the web. Vulture19 (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The Banana Boat Story, reserve opinion on others not already commented on. There is a claim to some notability in the article ("This was the first break-in single to sample commercial jingles, rather than rock 'n' roll songs."), but a less-than-thorough search has not yielded any sources to back this claim. Vulture19 (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)a[reply]
Weak Keep Santa And The Satellite, reserve opinion on others not already commented on. Song made Top 40 charts, and has good web presence [6], but a less-than-thorough search didn't show any of the "top shelf" WP:RS. Vulture19 (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Flying Saucer Goes West, reserve opinion on others not already commented on. Other than giving Elvis a run for popularity in Ottawa [7], there appear to be very few sources for this, none particularly reliable. Song did not chart. Vulture19 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Frankenstein of '59, reserve opinion on others not already commented on. While the last hit here looks intriguing I doubt I'll ever have time to actually look into further. gHits are inconclusive. Vulture19 (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stagger Lawrence, reserve opinion on others not already commented on. Other than appearing in the congressional record, the only possible claim to notability of this song is in the collaboration with a possibly notable DJ out of Detroit. Vulture19 (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Russian Bandstand, reserve opinion on others not already commented on. There just may be enough here for an article. The song charted in the top 100, but seems to get coverage and analysis now and then in cold war research. May be minor, may not. Add on the collaboration with a possibly notable DJ out of Detroit, may be worth keeping. Vulture19 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The Touchables, The Touchables In Brooklyn, Santa & The Touchables to Dickie Goodman, reserve opinion on others not already commented on. Searches on the first in this group are complicated by the occurrence in the title of the other two. Regardless, there are hints of motability that I can't seem to access from the web, again would actually have to dig through some books that I don't own. Vulture19 (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When doing Google searches, it's usually advisable to include "-wikipedia" or "-(some phrase or sentence in the wikipedia article)". The number of hits usually goes down dramatically. Compare [8] or [9] to your search above. WP:GOOGLEHITS is generally an argument to avoid, because it doesn't tell us much. The question is whether there are reliable sources with significant coverage of any of the songs, enough for a reasonably long article, if the parent article is long enough to justify a split per the (I think) reasonable standard of WP:NSONGS and Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Notability, which concurs (or whether there's a good argument for ignoring those guidelines). I doubt whether that will be the case. Perhaps I could drop The Flying Saucer (song), though I think Goodman's own notability is better served by discussing that song in his article. I'd add that I think it would be frustrating for a WP reader to follow the links for each of his songs, only to see they don't say anything that wasn't already or couldn't have already been said in his article. Goodman's own article is a big mess, including lines like this: "I was told years ago by Jon Goodman that this was Bobby Darin and that Dickie produced it, possibly I misunderstood what he was saying, because I just found out that this was recorded by The Glass Bottle, on Avco. I can't add more info until I get my copy in the mail. I have a recording from Jon's second CD." Either someone added remarks like that with little understanding of what WP is, or that's copied from somewhere else without attribution, possibly a copyvio. I didn't have a search and destroy mission here; while I suspect most of the stubs in Category:Song stubs would also fail N, RS, V, etc. and could be prodded or AfDed, that's not how I want to spend all my time on WP. I stumbled across this particular orphanage of song stubs when reverting a vandal. I considered prods, but I don't like the lack of records of those when successful relative to the AfD process, or merging, but I suspected it might be more controversial for some. I'm willing to help improve Goodman's article, which I think is a more productive use of my/our time. Besides the internet, my university library is pretty good, and interlibrary loan is pretty fast most of the time - I could order that Death Discs book. Шизомби (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not using the volume of gHits as the only factor in my opinion - however, if the number of gHits is large, that, ipso facto, is an indication of notability. This would be a rationale for using the "weak" modifier to the opinion. Also, perhaps I didn't specify (my mistake) that in some of these cases, they weren't gHits I was referring to, but gBook hits. As these are not always available in preview form on the web, we can't make a reasonable assumption, for or against, the validity of these sources, nor can we make an assumption about how detailed the reference actually is. That would require someone to actually find the book and look it up. Given the extremely large number of articles here, I may not be as thorough in looking as I would like to be, as the first deadline on the discussion is approaching, and frankly this AfD discussion has taken up most of my wikitime. Given that not all of the listings here meet the the same deletion criteria, I feel it important to look at each one individually.

Regarding the Dickie Goodman article being a mess - I was always of the understanding that an AfD was not a tool to be used to improve an article. Merely merging all, or a lot, of these candidates would make the referenced article more of a mess. One of the abnormal aspects of most of these candidates are the inclusion of other notable songs. (You could almost make an argument that that confers some notability). The listing of samples used is integral to the song, and to move all of these to the Dickie Goodman article would make that almost unreadable.

Also, could you do me a small favor? I have no idea what your user name is unless I look through all of the code or do a mouse hover. Can you include, parenthetically, the name that would appear in an edit list? Thanks. Vulture19 (talk) 16:10, 30 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 reliable sources. SilkTork *^YES! 01:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel E. Smid[edit]

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

Lack of references and evidence of notability challenged for over a year. PROD was contested, but without improvement to the article. Deskford (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improve or delete - If this composer cannot be found in any reliable sources the entry has to be deleted. If he can the article has to be improved. I've never heard of him or the film he scored. It also happens to be an unreferenced BLP which should make it a candidate for speedy deletion really... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me an obvious candidate for deletion, but both speedy and PROD have been previously declined without explanation, hence my opening it up for discussion here. --Deskford (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smid is mentioned only in connection with the film The Amazing Truth About Queen Raquela. I can't find any substantial information indicating notability of this person. There is no coverage in the Czech language, perhaps people fluent in Icelandic could find out more? --Vejvančický (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no coverage in either Czech or Icelandic Wikipedias (though the film gets a stub article in Icelandic). --Deskford (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no evidence of notability, or even information about the subject.--Smerus (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some additional films for which he wrote the music. Some are redlinks, but there is an article about the film Act Normal. - Eastmain (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. if there are no reviews of his music we must regard him as non notable. --Klein zach 01:06, 28 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. Or "nomination withdrawn". Pick one. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur H. Ferry[edit]

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

a large article, but I can't seem to find anything that passes WP:BIO. He's linked with lots of organisations, yes, but mainly as the money donor. Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. This article alone is enough to establish notability: Trohan, Walter (17 August 1962). "Who Is Wilbur Ferry?". The Spokesman-Review. Spokane, Washington. Retrieved 24 December 2009. — Eastmain (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair does; I didn't find that when searching myself. You can take this message as a formal "withdrawal of nomination" (if somebody is willing to close the AfD. Never worked out how to do it myself. Ironholds (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Per Ironholds there's plenty there to keep. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:43, 27 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 Illusion (company). There doesn't seem to be the coverage to support an article, so the keeps have less weight. I would suggest redirecting Battle Raper (series) and Battle Raper 2 with no pressing need to take them to AfD first. Fences&Windows 00:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Raper[edit]

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

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

Delete. Seriously? I can't even believe this article exists in the first place. Battle Raper is a non-notable game, where the objective is to "strip, grope, and sometimes actively rape the female character." It lacks non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable third party publications. Merry Christmas, JBsupreme (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Shadowjams (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect the nom may be correct. I find a passing mention in a conference paper [10] a journal article I can't access at the moment[11], and the other hits in Google Scholar and News are foreign language ones. LexisNexis news search finds just four articles with passing mentions. Haven't gone through all web search results, there is more substantial coverage on the blog of the American Sociological Association's magazine Contexts.[12] Unless there are some other sources hiding out there (maybe video game or feminist publications), at most this could just be mentioned in Video game controversy. Any reason why you didn't bundle Battle Raper 2 and Battle Raper (series) into this AfD? Шизомби (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response comment I am finding the same passing coverage that you are, but nothing substantial as of yet. I am not a huge fan of bundling nominations, but if this gets deleted I will probably nominate the others eventually unless someone beats me to it. JBsupreme (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Battle Raper" has been mentioned frequently in connection with objectionable Japanese video games. Also WP:NOTCENSORED. 76.66.193.225 (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with censorship. Notability and verifiability are the primary concerns. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it has had some third party coverage. [13]. LibStar (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Google news archive articles appear to be mainly passing mentions in the context of Amazon.com banning Rapelay, another game by the same developer, unless the foreign ones have more. The question for me is, are there enough RS and enough significant coverage to be able to write a reasonably detailed article, even just a short one, even if all the Battle Raper WP articles are merged? Merging and redirecting into the developer Illusion (company) and mentioning in the Video game controversy I could support. Шизомби (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response comment I looked at the Google News search you're referring to. The "third party coverage" you refer to is laughable only because it is not really coverage at all. It barely qualifies as a passing mention. I admit, I can't read any of the non-English language articles so if you're seeing some non-trivial coverage in another language that I cannot read please explain yourself here, otherwise you are not really citing any worthwhile coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~keep~~/merge - Between Battle Raper, Battle Raper 2 and Battle Raper (series) there's at least one article too many for the relatively few sources available, probably two. Doing a merge either way would result in an article at Battle Raper. Nifboy (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response comment Uhhh. Wait, what? This feels more like a walled garden than anything. Which "few sources" are you referring to? JBsupreme (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The few sources mentioned above that generally use it in the same sentence as Rapelay. I hesitate to simply !vote delete/redirect based on the lack of English-language sources, but am unable to give it its due diligence. Nifboy (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had the reaction I expect a lot of gamers will have: "wait, that's infamous, there must be sources.." Actually there isn't, neither in the article or coming up from a search. The only thing I can come up with is a few mentions in the news results, all of which basically say "in BR the player has to beat up and rape women." That's hardly the basis for an article. I found no strong results for BR2 either (which would just as easily come up from a search for "Battle Raper"), the other articles should be bundled as suggested by Schizombie. Totally non-notable beyond a passing mention in any video games shock horror type article. Happy new year. Someone another 14:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Illusion (company). This is verifiable ([14]), but not notable. Marasmusine (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapelay is apparently not the same game as Battle Raper.--Pink Bull 04:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close. From what I can tell, Battle Raper is a near 1:1 rip off of Soul Calibur, not that that makes it more or less notable or anything. JBsupreme (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Raper is mentioned in the linked Telegraph story. True, the only information that can be extracted is "Illusion made a game called Battle Raper", but that's all we need for it to be verified in the list of games at Illusion's article, and for this to be redirected there. And thats the last time I want to write the word Raper. Marasmusine (talk) 08:46, 30 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 by Nyttend (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A9: Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Life[edit]

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

No sources, no information. I'm pretty sure this was just pulled out of the sky. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 22:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Yet another totally uncorroborated album article from this guy. This is getting tedious. I have put it up for speedy under CSD A9 and put him on a final warning for inappropriate page creation. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 24 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 assertion of notability SilkTork *^YES! 01:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckexercise[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS, I can find no independent coverage of this album. J04n(talk page) 22:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even assert notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't fin d significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any in-depth coverage; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 19:47, 28 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EC Hambro Rabben & Partners[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/EC Hambro Rabben & Partners

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As non-notable. A search returns mainly directory listings, and no significant cover by any reliable source. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About all that can be verifiably said about this boutique bank is already mentioned in the article about the former Hambros Bank. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:51, 27 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Kain[edit]

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

Note:It is my opinion that was long as an actor has made at least one appearance in a movie or television production that they be allowed to remain in the wikipedia collective. Sometimes even the smallest of roles are the most significant to the entire production. GeekAngel 13:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete, His only roles on Imdb are two guest appearances; non-notable. Wizardman 22:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two TV episodes, where you're billed 6th and 11th, does not amount to "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" per WP:ENT. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and allow back once his career gets some notice. As it is, he fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG, thus failing WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Glen and Schmidt. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 02:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is in no way notable except as an example of an "article" lacking notability. TeamZissou (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor roles in marginally notable shows don't add up to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:28, 30 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. Too many issues with this article. BLP is the key policy here. Tone 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Isaac Fine[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)

This is a non-notable person. Also, only a couple of the citations in this article are from reliable sources. The rest of the citations are from either 1) non-reliable sources or 2) reliable sources that discuss the political opinions in this article but do not relate to facts about the man or news coverage about him and indeed in many cases do not even mention him. OCNative (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of the page is attempting meatpuppetry to prevent the deletion of Richard Isaac Fine at http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2009/12/09-12-24-wikipedia-skirmishes-in-re.html (which explains the single-purpose accounts' "votes" below). OCNative (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is a toughish one, because there is some decent coverage of this man, for instance in the California Bar Journal here and the LA Times, reprinted via the local news, here. (Most of the coverage, though, is in spurious and non-reliable sources.) I think, though, that this is basically a WP:BLP1E case: to the extent he is notable, it is for just one "newsy" event—getting disbarred and chucked in the slammer. Whatever the merits of his crusade against the local judiciary, he hasn't received any reliable-source coverage for it except in the context of explaining why he was thrown in prison. I find especially instructive here the concern expressed in BLP1E that "[b]iographies in [such] cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view." My understanding of the history of this article is that it has largely been used by a few editors as a vehicle to express solidarity with Fine, to argue for his liberation, and to promote his theories about the L.A. judiciary. That issue leads me to vote for deletion, especially when I consider that having garnered a handful of news stories would still only make Fine a quite minor figure of local notability anyway. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a local story. I have found no newsbank articles outside of Los Angeles. Nothing even in other parts of the state.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOT SOAPBOX, and multiple BLP violations. Possibly, Speedy delete as G10, atttack page. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE DELETE - keep wikipedia in touch with reality...

I was the one who initiated the article, albeit it was edited, modified, added to etc by others. I challenge the move to delete on the following grounds:

1) The man reversed or prevented single handed over a billion dollars in false taxation on Californians. Not a feat that could be claimed by many.

2) Starting 2001, the man single handed exposed, advertised and denounced the secret payments to all ~450 judges and ~120 commissioners in Los Angeles that required pardons for civil and criminal liabilities for all judges and commissioners. This is the most populous county in the US,with more than 10 million residents, and the largest superior court in the US. In such county, and such court - all judges were in fact declared pardoned criminals. The story this far already was worthy of inclusion in wikipedia - it was unprecedented in US history.

3) Less than two weeks after the signing of the pardons on February 20, 2009, the man was arrested with no warrant, while appearing in court, and he has been held with no conviction and no sentencing ever since, under the guise of false hospitalization, with no medical justification. That too, I hope, was not common, albeit, I have not data regarding the prevalence of human rights abuses of this sort in the US. It is exactly the kind of data that were often deleted from wikipedia and other published sources. (see below)

It would be regrettable if wikipedia decided to delete this article, but would also be a repeat of my experience in an attempt to mention extreme Human Rights abuses that took place under Katrina in the article on Human Rights in the US. A one sentence mention, in a multi page article, which referenced articles in the Nation and a UN official report, was repeatedly attacked and deleted, to the point that I found it worthless to insist on its inclusion. The human rights abuses that were referenced there were most likely the worst in the US in the past decade. Prisoners were left to drown in their cells, the guards left them locked when the water was rising, and abandoned the prison. You could not find the story ever mentioned in the English version wikipedia, with pages and pages on human rights virtues of the US. If the trend goes on, you were likely to find the English Wikipedia supporting education of young Americans in a bubble that is out of touch with reality as perceived by the rest of mankind. Deletion of the Richard Fine story, would confirm a picture of wikipedia trying to portray the US as clean and good as mom and apple pie. It just ain't the reality, folks.

I hope you share a vision of wikipedia as a place where people, especially young people can go and find true data on significant subjects. Not only celebrity stories and trivia pursuit. We have sufficient other sources for that.

The story was referenced in brief under biography of Carlos R. Moreno,in wikipedia, as the reason that undermined his credibility as US Supreme Court candidate. Surely it was no "local story."

Finally - I invite anybody to google the web for Richard Fine and see the level of interest around the country in the story. However, many of the sites can be confusing in providing partial information, and not allowing to grasp the full story. There was need for one place where people could get a short, reliable information on the story as a whole -that was exactly the function of a good encyclopedia.

Suggested action - I hope that the article would not be deleted, it would be a sign of politization, in the worst sense of the word, of wikipedia. I would be grateful for any constructive suggestions. I could make efforts to beef the article up with more references, albeit, it already had many more references, but some were deleted by others.

I request that the issue be forwarded for moderation using whatever procedures were available in Wikipedia.

InproperinLA (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The story was referenced in brief under biography of Carlos R. Moreno,in wikipedia, as the reason that undermined his credibility as US Supreme Court candidate." This "fact" does not appear in the current version of Moreno's article. It is referenced in the article about Fine, but there is no source supporting this allegation. --Weazie (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition to deletion I would remind all that, at the time of the celebrated incident which ignited the civil rights movement of the '60s, Rosa Parks would most certainly have been a "non-notable" person. I have been following the story from the aeries of Colorado, and view this as a flash-point in the most important civil rights battle since the '60s. If errors are to be made in Wikipedia, they should be on the side of inclusion, as opposed to exclusion. That having been said, the article itself does need to be upgraded, but this should be the burden of those who know the story. I'd like to see links to the actual briefs, analyzed by an expert in that area of the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouldergeist (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC) — Bouldergeist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately, we don't have legal experts write analyses of briefs because of WP:NOT#OR and in particular WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." That's already a big issue with this article.
Fair enough. It might make more sense for Inproper to write up an entry on the scandal that has resulted in Mr. Fine's allegedly unlawful imprisonment. This is of general interest (not unlike Operation Greylord and the Cash for Kids scandal), and would address the objections raised herein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouldergeist (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion The nature of this entry speaks to the possibility of judicial corruption (which specifically needs verification by the U.S. DOJ in a lawful manner). Because the information on Richard Fine is open to the public as court records it is verifiable in a legal sense. Because judicial corruption is an issue at the heart of any society whether healthy or toxic, and because the topic of judicial corruption may be outside the awareness of many Wiki readers and other members of society, to delete an issue as vital as this would be a hardship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtsa (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) — Jtsa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oppose Deletion

Anyone who claims that there were any legal conclusions in the article from legal analysis,etc, that were unsupported - please be specific, instead of making general statements.
In general, I would say that the nature of the discussion above, demonstrated that this article was anything but an unworthy "local story", which was the original stated reason for move to delete.
I was the first to admit I was new to wikipedia. If the article needed to be wikified, I would be glad to learn and do my best to comply with requirements. Therefore, any constructive critisim would be most welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InproperinLA (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose deletion:

Although I live in Texas, I have become aware that the unlawful incarceration of Richard Fine is a major human rights issue. I have personally verified, some months ago, through a complicated series of phone calls that Richard Fine is, in fact, incarcerated in the Los Angeles County prison system. This information was not easily obtained, but required persistence on my part and a determination not to be dissuaded. When I finally was able to confirm Dr. Zernik's allegations regarding Fine's imprisonment, I was told that no other information was available to me because he was a "high profile prisoner". Dr. Zernik has tirelessly tried to go through normal government channels to get Los Angeles County and other responsible persons to do their duties and provide Richard Fine justice; he has also unsuccessfully tried to elicit the cooperation of the media. He has faced active suppression. God only knows what Richard Fine himself has faced.

What I don't know, but would like to find out, is whether a Writ of Habeas Corpus has ever been filed, and if so, what is the court's response.

In addition to the case of Richard Fine, I have personal knowledge of the confinement, also presumably illegal, of my friend and medical colleague, Jacques Jaikaran MD, in the Houston Federal Detention Center under the order of Judge Lynn Hughes. One might be able to say that Dr. Jaikaran is not a person of note. However, Judge Lynn Hughes is, and it is evident to me that Judge Hughes is guilty of judicial misconduct.

Has any judge made any ruling in the case of Richard Fine? If not, he is most certainly illegally incarcerated, and that is news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirleypigott (talk • contribs) 23:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC) — Shirleypigott (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. As noted, the notability is confined to one event (or perhaps, more charitably, one nexus of related events). On top of the non-notability, the article itself is NPOV, relies mostly on non-reliable sources (or reliabile sources for mundane information), and is being used as a soapbox (as the opposition in deletion also seem to be doing). In sum, not up to wikipedia's criteria. --Weazie (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Delete:

I find it difficult to accept the comment above at face value. "the single event" has lasted more than a decade. It involved the urgent need to issue pardons to ALL judges of the largest superior court in the US, in fact - declaring them pardoned criminals. It is unprecedented in US history. Calling is lacking in notability is just not credible criticism.
It goes more along the lines of deleting from the English wikipedia uncomfortable facts about the U.S. - example - the Katrina Human Rights atrocities mentioned above. I guess it was also, local, single event, was never reported in US media in any significant way, therefore - was lacking in notability... Only difference - in the Katrina story, the victims were dead, the living persons criticism could not be used.
It would be really unfortunate if one could find these stories in the non-English wikipedia, but not in the English version.
InproperinLA (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose deletion, however imperfect the post by improperinLA. My post about JAIL 4 Judges was not perfect either. I was, and still am, new to posting; but people improved upon what I'd written. What I added on July 27, 2009 regarding SBX2 11 was not deleted or moved into history. There's alot of information in improperinLA's post. He could get rid of some of it and instead provide links to websites where the information can be accessed. I suggested removing many links. From Maine to California people want judicial accountability... and Attorney Fine's story has shone light on the fact that ALL THREE of the branches are corrupt, at least in California. If Attorney Fine is not soon freed, God help us all. His imprisonment is absolute proof of a failed system. www.dirtydecisions.com MarthaMitchell 05:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarthaMitchell (talk • contribs) — MarthaMitchell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak keep but prune and let's have a frank discussion with article creator. The offsite canvassing evidenced above is utterly unacceptable, and taints the AfD in a shameful way. That said, there is some weak evidence of notability, but this requires first the article to be completely pruned of everything coming from questionable sources and BLP1E concerns are to be addressed. Since this can be addressed with editing, the article should be kept for now (Userfying could be a nice option if BLP concerns are too strong), but for sure the situation has to be dealt with seriously if the meatpuppetry continues. In particular, the article creator must learn that canvassing offsite is the best way to get his article deleted and his account banned. We're not morons. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but drastically prune. I concur with User:Cyclopia, there may be enough here for notability (just barely), but this is part of a concerted internet campaign by the creator of this article and he/she is using Wikipedia as yet another soapbox to further the campaign (as are the variety of meat puppets he has recruited). This editor has a blatant conflict of interest and the canvassing is completely unacceptable. The vast majority of the current "references" are spurious and link to other sites and blogs that are part of the campaign. They should all go, leaving only reliable sources, which from what I can see look to be about three. The article is also full of original research which needs to go. Voceditenore (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Law - Voceditenore (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep and rewrite [15] could be argued to be a 1 event type thing, but I'd say it has enough material for a BLP. The other sources are questionable, but enough to meet WP:N in my opinion. That said, there are BLP issues and NPOV issues that need fixing. A stubification and reliance only on traditional news media should be able to do that. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose delete~~

I guess by wiki standards I was the creator or progenitor, however, many others changed, edited, added and deleted, to the point that I could not call it my own child. Also, in view of the comments above, and with generous and gracious help from PMJ, the article was now transformed into a new trim and slim figure, regardless of holidays overeating!
A major mop up job on the references, in view of comments above, and again - PMJ's helpful hints - is still planned for this long holiday weekend.
Therefore - I suggest that anybody interested in the discussion above take a look at the article again
In case deletion is still on the agenda - I request moderation following whatever procedures are available in wikipedia.
InproperinLA (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose Delete~~

After reading and writing, i browsed a bit the list of proposed deletions in this site, and found here at #82 Montclair plaza - a shopping mall that I happen to know and love. However, I never considered it notable enough to be an entry in an encyclopedia. I was not sure what the final editors' consensus was regarding my favorite shopping experience, but finding it here surely gave me an entirely new perspective on the nature of wikipedia. In view of possible, or likely notability of Montclair Plaza, I would repeat my request: In case deletion is still on the agenda - I request moderation following whatever procedures are available in wikipedia.
InproperinLA (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: FYI, I've struck out your two !votes above, because you should only !vote once, although you're free to keep adding new comments, of course. Also, that's gotta be the wildest example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I've ever seen. 98.233.249.17 (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten Per the suggestions, I've removed all the non-RS and attempted to introduce NPOV. --Weazie (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having rewritten the article, I still vote for deletion. Fine was an attorney (not notable) who was disbarred (not notable) for his improper widespread campaign to recuse the judges of L.A. County from cases where the county was also a litigant (not notable). Fine's argument for recusal was based on a legal theory that ultimately proved to be correct, but Fine did not work on that other case, nor was that legal theory a legitimate basis for recusal. Fine's only real act of notability was being jail for contempt. But many people are jailed for contempt, and his particular reasons for doing so are not notable (he refused to answer questions about his own finances in an attempt to avoid paying sanctions). At best, this is a single event. --Weazie (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with Weazie above. While this fellow is of local and some blogger interest, the incident has not made an impact nationally in reliable sources, and as a BLP we err on the side of deletion in these cases. Auntie E. 04:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing wrong with local sources, nor is national impact required. WP:N doesn't discount local sources nor require national attention. Hobit (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG (barely). The only substantial coverage that Fine has received in reliable, third-party sources was one article in the local section of the LA Times [16] and three articles in the Metropolitan News Enterprise [17] [18] [19], a Los Angeles daily newspaper with a circulation of 2,000 covering local legal news [20]. Like Auntie E., I prefer to err on the side of deletion with BLPs, and the minimal local news coverage is just not enough for me to support keeping it. 98.233.249.17 (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep in the version linked below~~:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Isaac_Fine&oldid=334124004

Quick link for review of the difference between the current and above versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Isaac_Fine&action=historysubmit&diff=334218213&oldid=334124059 Regarding striking and such - I thought this was not going by popularity vote, so what the striking for? The Keep title is to indicate the content of the opionion, not meant as a vote. As to opinion: I suggest that Richard Fine be declared a shopping mall, which would be as close to to the true fact in this matter as the current exposition in wikipedia. As a shopping mall he would also be automatically notable. 19:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by InproperinLA (talk • contribs)

InproperinLA, your behaviour is not helping. And, no, you don't have a right to ask which version of the article is kept. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case there's any doubt that this is a soapbox effort: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2009/12/09-12-24-soliciting-proclamation-by.html --Weazie (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt whatsoever, but that's not what we're talking about. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for the log. Orginal author also attempting to add material about Fine (based on same non-RS) to political dissent and punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union. --Weazie (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) created by User:InproperinLA (the creator of Richard Isaac Fine). There are multiple links to his website used as references + a spurious reference (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a) which links to a petition largely filled with comments (not surprisingly) about "freeing" Richard Fine. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And note also the emerging edit war in Notice of Electronic Filing in which same author does orginal research in attempt to show that Fine is being wrongly held. --Weazie (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the most recent canvassing for this deletion discussion: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2009/12/09-12-27-wikipediaarticles-for.html Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. I am a new contributer. I am a Professor Emeritus in Mathematics. In addition, Richard I. Fine represented me and my condo association in fighting the Developers and County across the alley in Marina del Rey. A State Bar proceeding against Fine was initiated two weeks after we hired Fine when an agent of the developers was the State Bar president, and the State Bar Court found Fine guilty of moral turpitude at a most inopportune time in our suit against the County of Los Angeles and the Developers. After Fine was removed from our case, the developer's lawyers got an ex partite decision from the judge ordering Fine to pay a large sum to the to the developer's attorneys. Fine's efforts to revoke this harsh and severe order, which was asked for and granted to the lawyers without his knowledge and arguments, resulted in the developers prosecuting him for 16 counts of contempt. I have read five of the seven volumes of testimony to the State Bar Court and also the decision of the State Bar Review Court, and I am certain Fine was the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice, and my condo association was illegitimately deprived of a talented and honest advocate by the State Bar and malicious prosecution by the developer's law firm. After Fine was incarcerated for contempt, he availed himself of every opportunity to appeal the decision. He needed and had a group of paralegals and lawyers volunteering and aiding him in filing numerous appeals. These knowledgeable volunteers report several cases of documents disappearing from court dockets and unsigned judicial orders. Finally, I note the circular argument advanced by many pro deleters: The Fine article is not important because there is little coverage of him in the main stream press. One reason is that there is evidence of the press ignoring important stories involved with the development in Marina del Rey, and this applies to the Fine case as well. A particular shocking example is captured on video on FullDisclosure.net when their reporter is told by a County Sheriff's aide that she would never be allowed to interview Fine in the County Jail. Those advocating deletion are recommending the same result from which they derive their argument, Reduce public knowledge of the Fine case. SophistryAlert (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)SophistryAlert — SophistryAlert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You need to read this Wikipedia policy and this one to understand what this discussion is about and why the article has been edited to its present state. This discussion is about whether the subject is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. The notability must be verified by references to reliable sources. The putative reasons as to why there are so few reliable sources, i.e. a press conspiracy to ignore the grievances of the Marina del Rey residents and Mr. Fine, is not a valid argument. I personally think there is an argument that he may pass the notability criteria (just barely) given what coverage there is. But even if the article is kept, it will not be allowed to be used as advocacy for him, or his views, or the views of his supporters. This has been pointed out numerous times, as well as why that is entirely inappropriate and contrary to Wikipedia's core policies. Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the smokescreen about where his name gets mentioned etc just diverts from the simple truth that this is a non-notable person who has fans trying to push him to notability on wikipedia. Nothing more than soapboxing in disguise. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK vocedutenore, I will try to stay within the parameters. Is R. I. Fine notable? Yes, he is one of a very rare group of men who has been convicted by a Judge who was a party to the case. Such men are rare because of the ancient English Common Law rule that a man cannot judge his own case. The trial occurred on December 22, 2008 and its transcripts can be found on pages 96/169 to 107/169 at the link http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-4_fine-habeas-corpus-petition_p1-169.pdf . This should be a quick, interesting and even amusing read, and does not require extensive knowledge of the underlying cases. It is easy to verify the judge is a witness in the trial he is presiding over, and of course it is reliable since it is a court document. I don't understand which argument you are saying is not valid. Are you agreeing with my circular argument statement? Or is that the argument which is not valid? At any rate, given what is happening to the Main stream media vis a vis the internet, I think the internet will become the standard for notability, in the future. Fine is very visible on the internet. There is allot of quality coverage of Fine in the internet. Googling on Richard Isaac Fine to find how many new groups have taken up his case, I found the Wikipedia article. It seemed to be edited towards an evenhanded position just before Christmas, but now it only produces legal orders and does not seek to answer the natural question: Why is Fine, who practiced before the US supreme Court, now disbarred and in jail? Why are so many people supporting him? A fair description of his supporters would be make a more useful article.

The news organization http://www.fulldisclosure.net/ follows the Fine story, as well as several others. The blog http://righttrumpsmight.blogspot.com/ is accurate and contains links to several other reliable sites. SophistryAlert (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)SophistryAlert[reply]

That "news organization" (?) and a blog are 'not reliable sources. If that is the best you can bring about, you're practically pushing for deletion. Really, guys, you're not helping your case at all. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to SophistryAlert: 1. If you read this discussion, you'll see that my opinion was and remains "weak keep" on the grounds that he (barely) passes the the notability criteria via the existing reliable sources. However, the editors who have opined "delete" in this discussion also make valid arguments. You have now been pointed many times to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The arguments you have just made above show that you certainly haven't understood them and may not even have read them. Deletion discussions are not forums for changing existing Wikipedia policy and guidelines, your views on the reliability of blogs, the personal opinions of Mr. Fine's supporters and "internet visibility" notwithstanding.

2. Yes, I read the transcripts of the court cases you are referring to. I also read the documents in which the United States Supreme Court declined to review his disbarment [21] and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the federal district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition, [22].

3. Finally, and most crucially for understanding why this article needed drastic pruning, please read another link that's been pointed out here numerous times - Wikipedia:No original research. Voceditenore (talk) 14:21, 30 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obsession within Frankenstein[edit]

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

Quite simple really. With all due respect to the author, it's an essay, consisting of pure original research, therefore not acceptable for Wikipedia. I wish there was a csd for these things... Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who are you trying to get crazy with essay? JBsupreme (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#ESSAY and OR indeed. Mainly WP:PLOT and uses an unreliable source, http://www.helium.com/items/1205645-book-reviews-frankenstein-by-mary-shelley Шизомби (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essay, fails WP:NOT#ESSAY. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 21:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete -- an essay, or something someone learned in class one day. --EEMIV (talk) 22:38, 28 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Therapy and Regulation[edit]

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

Apparently moribund journal, only 3 volumes published since 2003, no indication of notability besides indexing in Scopus. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals). Deprodded by anonymous IP with reason "Inclusion in Scopus is listed as and example of how to meet Criteriea 1 WP:Notability (academic journals)", but the fact that the journal has only appeared a few times and hasn't appeared since 2007 weighs more heavily to me. Crusio (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability guideline. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 26 articles published with the most cited having 8 cites in 5 years... definitely not evidence of an impact on the field. I can't find any mention of the journal in reliable sources. Fences&Windows 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was asked about this journal on my talk page, and in response I added material to the article which demonstrates that it does not even meet the criterion of regular publication, is not indexed in Medline, & is essentially uncited. I am a little troubled at some of the journals Scopus has been adding, and i shall be inquiring further. I shall also be checking the other journals added by this contributor, all by the same publisher. A quick look shows that about half of them are not remotely notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 24 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dudas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Richard Dudas

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

Notability. This composer, though he has a nice academic record, hasn't made any impact in the classical music world and does not meet the notability criteria:

Hasn't been the subject of independent media coverage.
His pieces haven't been performed/recorded by major ensembles, orchestras or performers.
His pieces haven't won any major composition competition not established expressly for newcomers.
He is not credited as a major developer for MAX/MSP.
Not relevant as a teacher (although he is an assistant professor).

Once more: not every professional musician deserves an article here. Karljoos (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nom appears to have it right, a check of the searches doesn't produce evidence of notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 28 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homemade air conditioner[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a howto manual. No indication of notability just a howto on building an AC noq (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTHOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even a useful design. You need ice water to make it work.--agr (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously; WP:NOTHOWTO. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a HOWTO, but possible redirect to Air conditioner. Shadowjams (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no redirect. Clear WP:Howto and probable WP:Original research issues. PDCook (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTHOWTO or just.....well, common sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:33, 30 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poland Central School[edit]

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

Unremarkable K-12 school, with no explanation of notability. Google searches pull up nothing to justify its presence here. Warrah (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I've never agreed with the "Every school is notable" theory, but supporters of that insisted on an exception to A7 for schools, and it was only with that exception that A7 got consensus, so I removed the speedy tag. (A7 is overused anyway). But I see no particular notability here. On Google web I found nothing but directory entries and pages form the school itself, and on Google news two trivial local stories. DES ^(talk) 20:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should mention that the original article was actually named for the school's web site. i moved it to Poland Central School and added what clarifying information i could, so that sources, if they exist, could be found and added. The original speedy tag was not improper, since the article was at least in form about a web site, which is a proper subject for an A7 speedy. Only when i renamed the article was A7 deletion clearly improper. But it was equally clear that while there might be a chance of a useful small article about the school, ther was none about the school's web site, and... -- well the page history contains the initial version, draw your own conclusions. In general i feel that if there is a chance, even if a small one, of winding up with a useful article, i prefer pursuing it to speedy deletion. That is a personal opinion of course, but it is why i took the actions i did. DES ^(talk) 21:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know where K-12 schools fall; High Schools are usually notable, middle and below are usually not. Nor have I much of a look at this one. Question - is there an article for the school district that runs this school? I see a lot of otherwise non-notable schools merged into a mention under the district article, and that may be applicable here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.Rirunmot ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education and WP:SCHOOLS (essay/failed guideline). We have few hard and fast rules here, but articles on high schools are the closest thing we have to inherent notability. Recent examples of keeps of high school AfDs per these guides, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BEST High School (Kirkland, Washington), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summit School (Queens, New York) (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvary Baptist Academy, New Braunfels, Texas. It appears this school is part of the Poland Central School District, and this may be the only building in the district, so I'm not opposed to a single article covering both, with a redirect for the other.--Milowent (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. If it is K-12 then it would receive the same protection as a high school I suppose. JBsupreme (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or merge - meets almost every standard that ends up in a "keep" for me and for WP:OUTCOMES - public high school of usual size, has had a notable sports team, etc. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a heads up, WP:OUTCOMES is just an essay, and while citing essays can have merit when they're good essays, OUTCOMES' reliability is a big question (i.e. whether any of the things reported as "common outcomes" really are). See the talk page generally or Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Major_Overhaul specifically. Шизомби (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't recalll any article being deleted in the last couple of years about a high school that is verified to exist, so, in this case, keeping certainly is the common outcome. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. For a school of this size in the United States, there are probably additional references that could be found with access to news databases that aren't available for free. - Eastmain (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - public school that contains a high school; won a state championship; in addition to the existing sources there are plenty more from which the page can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 02:31, 24 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 Consensus to delete.

With a pure vote count this seems like a close debate, however if the content of the opinions as related to policy is taken into account then there is a clear consensus for deletion. I count 19 people who think the criteria for this article is subjective and as such not encyclopedic. This opinion seems rooted in policy and our goal of creating an encyclopedia.

This has been somewhat countered by 5 people who believe the sources make the content non-subjective, and 3 people who believe the article can be fixed. These opinions also seem rooted in policy and our goal of creating an encyclopedia. Despite this there is a clear favour for deletion of the article.

Arguments that only involve stating how many nominations this article has had in the past are given little weight as they have no basis in policy. Wikipedia is not run off of precedent and consensus can change. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual personal names[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. This is an inherently subjective list, even with sources it runs afoul of our NPOV policy. We are not here to promote what is "unusual" at the time. JBsupreme (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this piece of subjective listcruft. Who is the judge on what is an "unusual name"? If Joan Rivers says "Hrm...Angelina Jolie has an unusual name" in her stand-up routine and the press pick up on it, does that mean that it should be included on the list? What I'm trying to say is that one person's view of an "unusual name" is another person's norm. Also, this article is very Western-centric and some entries could be perceived as racist; I find Lojze Peterle's name unusual because I'm not Slovenia, for example. However, I can see this being kept due to the result of this recent AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination). WossOccurring (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's best to stick to actual examples, especially when discussing NPOV issues, rather than inventing "what if" scenarios. Neither Lojze Peterle nor Angelina Jolie are included in the list.
  I agree that some of the entries could be debated/removed (eg. Condoleezza Rice), but that is a content dispute, not a reason for deleting the entire article. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The key here is that a majority of the names on the list are backed by reliable sources, and those sources document both that the names exist and that they were indeed unusual. We need to cull names from the list that pertain to living persons, and for which no sources exist - and there are some speculative entries that need addressing. But, so long as we comply with BLP, I think the list can stay. I don't believe that the List of YouTube celebrities AFD is a great precedent, since the main reason that article was kept is that the delete arguments focused on LISTCRUFT as a rationale. The NPOV argument is stronger; so long as we have sources saying that the names listed are indeed unusual, I think we satisfy that policy as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about a case where the unusualness of the name is in dispute? We would be saying that one side is more correct than the other, because the article name says that the name is definitely unusual, even if the other party believes that it isn't unusual at all. To my mind, this violates NPOV policy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe that the fact that the name is highlighted in a reliable source as being unusual would be sufficient. To offset that, we'd need a source that says, for example, "Chad Ochocinco's name seems unusual, but athletes named after their jersey numbers are more common than most people expect..." and showing that the name is not itself unusual. In cases where we have contradictory reliable sources, it falls to the talk page to discuss the matter, weigh the sources, and determine where consensus lies. It's possible that some names wouldn't pass muster, but that's a flaw of the entries and not the list. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the 4th nomination (various arguments and the close statement) from 30 April 2009. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —-- Quiddity (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have not been involved in previous nominations, but I think think the nominator's right that this list is more subjective than it is objective. Undoubtedly these people have had coverage, but that doesn't mean any of that coverage is notable, and more importantly, there's no evidence that the coverage indicates the unusual nature of the name is notable, only that a few people have unusual names and that some local newspapers commented on it. Shadowjams (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If something is covered in reliable sources then this is evidence that it is notable as this is what notability means - that the fact has been noted. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteinherently ambivalent criteria for inclusion. i know some of them will have refs saying they are unusual, but that still leaves us with a subjective criteria.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ultraexactzz. If reliable sources document that those names are unusual and it amounts to coverage that satisfies our notability guidelines, there is no reason to delete the list. I cannot see how "people whose names have been called unusual by reliable source" can be considered a "ambivalent" or "subjective" criterion. There is nothing violating WP:NPOV in having this kind of list, we do not say "those names are unusual", we say "reliable third-party sources those names are unusual" and that's what NPOV is about. And of course WP:LISTCRUFT is a non-argument as an essay that does not reflect consensus. Regards So Why 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is the gain in removing it? The loss is pretty obvious, it seems to me. - Jmabel | Talk 21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few problems. One, the sources in many cases do not actually indicate notability of the subjects listed (a problem which can be corrected through editing and removal of said persons in most cases.) Two, the list is highly subjective and violates our NPOV policy, hence this nomination for deletion. JBsupreme (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? I created this, I would not be that unhappy it if was deleted. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good lord, this article has an excessive number of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish criteria for inclusion. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I consider this article to be both interesting and useful, and I suppose that many other readers likewise would consider it to be both interesting and useful. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question I find this list to be subjective and borderline offensive. It is chock full of children (minors under 18 years of age) that are barely notable at best because their parents gave them an uncommon name at birth. There is an inordinate number of children of Hollywood actors here. I am dismayed at many of the keep !votes here and would like to ask those who have voted such to explain what kind of inclusion guidelines we should have if this list is to be retained? JBsupreme (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment We do not publish the real name of the infamous Star Wars Kid, citing WP:BLP and "do no harm". Why then is it we are maintaining a list of children much younger than Star Wars Kid (at the time the meme began) who are named something they have no control over? Is a person really notable if some local newspaper happens to mention someone was given an "unusual" name by their parents on a slow news day? I'm reading comments like "The loss it pretty obvious" and "article has an excessive number of independent reliable sources" and cannot help but strongly disagree with that line of thinking. I don't see how this article benefits Wikipedia editors, passive readers, or the living subjects being covered. JBsupreme (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Think of the children which explains why such special pleading is disreputable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article topic is inherently subjective, even if backed by sources - the fact that a source calls a name unusual does not necessarily make a name unusual. At most the title could be "list of personal names called unusual in the media" or some such. Anyway this would be a special case of the guideline of people notable for a single event, the event being their naming. The name would have to be so unusual that it had caused specific consequences for its bearer for any unusually named person to be considered notable under that guideline. Secondly there are the BLP concerns which I think are fair. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

add: the best argument for deletion is probably WP:NOT.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sadly, while I created this article, when I think about it this is really quite subjective. I think it probably best to delete. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WossOccurring, and Maunus. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 13:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WossOccurring's argument is a straw man - material which he has fabricated and which does not appear in the article. As he has not considered the article which we have but is dealing in fantasy, his argument carries no weight. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A subjective mess. Most of the names appear to be intentionally zany pseudonyms that are designed to get attention. There is also some BLP problems. Warrah (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, particularly per Warrah and Tbsdy. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if all statements are sourced, otherwise move to WP space like Wikipedia:List of unusual articles. Individual entries do not need at all to be notable for WP:N, since that's something that is related to full articles only. As per the "benefit", well, it is within the scope of WP to collect and structure information for the public. The fact it is "full of children" is utterly irrelevant: not our fault if they have names covered in the media for being unusual. --Cyclopia^talk 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would be a misuse of the Wikipedia namespace. The Wikipedia namespace is about pages that are to do with Wikipedia, no articles should be in this namespace. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete criteria for inclusion far too vague and, in the end, subjective. Rodhull andemu 19:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Unusual" is a subjective criterion for inclusion in a list, and that alone should be reason enough to seal the deal on this debate. Those arguing to keep are correct in stating that there are abundant sources in this list, and if the concern here were one of notability or verifiability this argument would be persuasive; however it does nothing to address the central concern that it is simply too subjective. Shereth 19:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would a move to "List of personal names considered unusual" help? This would make it clear that we report what RS have said about the names. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that really accomplishes, then, is to enshrine the POV of countless biographers, news reporters, PR agencies and the like into a Wikipedia article. Maunus states it well above in citing WP:NOT; a "List of X that Y has considered Z" certainly falls within that description. Shereth 19:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it may be unusual to be loved by anyone, but it's definitely not usual to have completely subjective, undefinable articles in encyclopedias.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite false as most topics have some element of subjectivity in defining their scope. This is obviously true of broad philosophical topics such as Love and Evil. It also applies to topics which have a nebulous boundary such as science fiction and money. Even matters such as the length of rivers require numerous subjective decisions of measurement and inclusion. All such topics are routinely included in encyclopedias and we are no different. The way in which we determine what to say is to rely upon the statements of reliable sources - the method which we use for all our articles - and this is no different. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too broadly subjective to be a reasonable list, potential BLP concerns (what determines if a person's name is unusual? It's mildly defamatory to maintain a list of people who can be derided merely for their name). No reasonable criteria to add someone to the list other than "some random opinion piece was published somewhere that someone said they thought this was a weird name". Seriously, Wikipedia is better off without this. As a last option to WP:PRESERVE some of this, some of the bluelinked entries could be selectively merged into Wikipedia:List of unusual articles, but otherwise this list should not be. --Jayron32 21:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- entirely fixable. All the above complaints are addressable with only a modicum of effort. The list can be made non-subjective (and thus compliant with WP:NPOV) if we insist that all names in the list be specifically identified as "unusual" (or words to that effect) in reliable sources, and compliant with WP:V if we cite said sources. As for the BLP-based arguments, BLP wisely counsels us to not write about individuals if they have not already been brought to the public's attention by mainstream sources. Limiting the article to "names that mainstream sources have noted are unusual" makes us fully compliant with BLP.
I've started in on that work, and I thank JBSupreme for doing much of it as well. I just wish he didn't feel it was necessary to both clean up the list and try to delete it at the same time; maybe he's trying to use AfD to try to force these improvements under duress. I think that's a misuse of AfD; it should have instead been taken to the NPOV and/or BLP noticeboards. But so be it.--Father Goose (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see where you are coming from - definitely having it listed 5 times could be seen as pushing it... however, in this case the topic itself is inherently vague and we are basically saying that we agree with those who believe the names are unusual. What about a situation where the person doesn't see their own name as unusual? The title is in essence taking a side here - it is saying that the person's name is unusual, which is a point of view. This fundamentally violates the NPOV policy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a list of "names that reliable sources have noted as being unusual". There's nothing even remotely vague in that criterion, and it is explicitly stated at the top of the article. It would be ponderous, even inappropriate, to include such specificity in the title just because people at this AfD aren't paying attention to the list criterion. (We don't have List of tallest completed, continuously occupiable buildings over 240 meters high in the world for that reason.) And it wouldn't dissuade idiots who like to add their own "favorite crazy names" anyway. We don't delete articles just because some people perpetually disregard Wikipedia's conventions.
    What is non-neutral is practically every "deletion" !vote on this page: "subjective unencyclopedic crap-magnet non-neutral BLP NOT incomplete undefinable trivia cruft". It's just one snap judgment after another. They're not even bothering to offer a rationale, let alone one based in policy (and merely saying "This violates policy XXX" without explaining how is not based in policy). I also see a lot of arguments that say, "It's not enough if a reliable source says that a name is unusual; I don't think it's unusual, therefore the list is crap." That is an argument based upon "truth, not verifiability", which is an utter contradiction of our core principles.--Father Goose (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this subjective trivia. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective and unencyclopaedic. A crap-magnet, too ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective and incomplete. (How could it leave out Shanda Lear? Doesn't anyone think that "Jimbo" is an unusual name?) Will Beback talk 01:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - without subsections, the list is nebulous and indefinable, but the article has subsections which are each themselves definable, these can be certainly referenced and sourced. Just about every bookshop in the mother/baby section has list of names type books. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I pointed out earlier, there are academic and popular books dealing with this. H. L. Mencken's classic American Language has a section on precisely this. The personal view that this is subjective is simply wrong, since sources exist. This has been pointed out repeatedly by numerous editors, but it does not stop the IDIDN'THEARTHAT. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the last AfD outcome, inclusion is still based on opinion and an unclear criteria. Nothing but a list of trivial opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (4th nomination), which closed as "keep". Five nominations of content that a respectable segment of the community finds worthwhile is excessive. This non-trivial content verifiable by multiple reliable sources, including scores of published books is undeniably Wikipedic and exactly the kind of fun and interesting content that makes Wikipedia appealing to such a diverse readership (it gets nearly 20,000 page views a month!). Although I am the tenth editor to argue to keep, I tagged the article for rescue at 00:43, 30 December 2009, although given the sourcing the article already has, deletion seems based really on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and so I am not sure myself what more can be done to counter that (hence why I am hoping that any reasonable and open-minded editors can indicate as much so we rescuers can act accordingly). Anyway, the article has a clear inclusion criteria: only names; only personal names; only unusual personal names; and per our policies and guidelines, only unusual personal names described as such in reliable sources. It also serves a valuable navigational purposes as a gateway to other articles. All of that is objective bases for inclusion. Moreover, WP:ITSCRUFT is never a compelling reason for deletion. In any event, so long as everything on it is backed by reliable sources and nothing is libelous, I see no pressing need to protect the public from this content nor to deny our thousands of readers and many editors who see this content as worthwhile from continuing to make use of it. While this discussion is most likely and most fairly a "no consensus" closure, I do think based on strength and honesty of arguments as DGG suggests above, it should be another "keep." What needs to be clear, though, is whether or not this is a case of no matter how much we improve this article do some simply not want Wikipedia to have lists? Or is there something specific we can also do and which you can help us to do? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is well sourced and there are numerous substantial works upon this topic such as The Guinness book of names, Personal names and naming: an annotated bibliography, A history of British surnames‎, American given names: their origin and history in the context of the English language, and so on. As naming is the subject of such study and scholarship, we are able to rely upon this to establish whether a name is unusual or not and so we're good. The nomination seems vexatious per WP:NOTAGAIN as it offers no new argument that has not been considered and rejected before. Raising this matter at this special time of the year with no trace of a new argument seems to be disruption contrary to WP:DEL, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Colonel Warden (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, "Colonel Warden", for assuming good faith. It would appear that you have overlooked the fact that this article has been deleted in previous AfD discussions, such as the 3rd nomination. If you would please refer to my repeated concerns addressed above, you would realize that I have made new arguments regarding this subjective list, with a particular concern about how we are treating living subjects (WP:BLP), specifically young children who are being referred to as "unusual" by this list. I most certainly do hope for a different outcome. Cheers, JBsupreme (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP did not form part of your nomination and is not applicable because this is not a biography. Again, please see Think of the children. It is our policy that censorious emotion may not be used to suppress content. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If BLP is interpreted to mean "information about living subjects that may be thought of as negative is to be deleted", then NPOV is in tatters. The principles and practices laid out by BLP are important and necessary. But they are also finite in both scope and intent: blacking out information that has already been made fully public by the mainstream media is not the purpose of BLP, regardless of what the information is, or who it is about. I know a lot of people wish that was the purpose of BLP, but it isn't.--Father Goose (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The funniest thing is when they cite BLP, forgetting completely WP:WELLKNOWN, which is an integral part of WP:BLP. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

commentTheir names may be well known, but whther their names are unusual is nothing more than someones subjective judgement. We might as well make a list of weird looking people and cite WELLKNOWN arguing that "we all know what they look like". The problem here is that being mentioned once as "having an unusual name" in the media does not mean that you have an unusual name - it only means that one reporter thought so.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WELLKNOWN is not a free pass for ignoring NOR, so that's a strawman argument. Being mentioned in the media as "having an unusual name" means that you have been mentioned in the media as "having an unusual name". That is the subject of the article, if one bothers to read it, which apparently not a single "delete" !vote here has.--Father Goose (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why is this up for deletion a fifth time? Why weren't the previous four "keep"s good enough? What's really new and different that justifies a fifth nomination? (As distinct from a "grasping at straws" rear-guard action.) It sounds a lot like "WP:I just don't like it" to me. I see the Colonel Warden / JBsupreme interchange above. I'm unconvinced about the "delete" argument. Unless someone can come up with a compelling "delete" argument, I will lodge a "keep" entry. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: it has been deleted once before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 12:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The third AFD resulted in a Delete verdict, and the article was deleted in January 2009. A DRV in April 2009 endorsed the closure, but found that community consensus on such lists had changed enough to permit them to be relisted. Thus, AFD 4 which was closed as Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot see how this can be rescued. A name may be "unusual" in one cultural context and very common in another. And keeping the list even remotely up to date would be impossible. NBeale (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see there being BLP issues here. Also who judges "unusual" from usual? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and clean-up - Fifth Nomination? Four others were to keep? Argument smacks of "WP:I just don't like it" as previous posters have said. Although the article really needs to be cleaned-up, I think. Roodog2k (talk)
Y'know, if you're going to use the "Fifth Nomination?" argument, it might do you well to actually read the four prior discussions; one ended in delete, two in keep, and one as no consensus. Shereth 17:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one that ended in "delete" was pseudo-overturned at DRV, which is why we're back here again. At best this article has been in perpetual "no consensus" territory, though given the almost exclusively subjective nature of the "delete" arguments, this is the kind of "debate" that puts the lie to "not a vote".--Father Goose (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 15:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Ten Dollars Ride[edit]

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

COI editor promoting his own non notable short film WuhWuzDat 14:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable short film for which I can't find any discussion, per WP:MOVIE. --Glenfarclas (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable -- Raziman T V (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This short film is a stub -- Rhythm live--Rhythm live (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)— Rhythm live (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Stubs still need to be notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Relisting as this seems to have disappeared off the 13 December AfD log. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there appears to be at least one cited independent review, plus two citations to the incidents that seem to have inspired the film. DES ^(talk) 20:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is only one reliable source with significant coverage and I can't find anymore. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article have source of significant coverage and incidents that relates to it. It's within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Singaporean Arts and Entertainment Eveswing (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; Eveswing has previously been identified as a "likely sockpuppet" of the article author. WuhWuzDat 05:15, 24 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) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carborundum Universal Limited[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. As well, the company is traded on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Most often, listed companies (those whose shares are traded on a recognized stock exchange) will have attracted enough media attention to demonstrate their notability, and this company is an example of that. - Eastmain (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Easily meets WP:CORP. Traded both in National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. Has substantial coverage in all major Indian financial papers.Business Line Business Line, Economic times, Mint, Business Standard Financial express. Same case with Business TV channels - CNBC TV18, NDTV profit, Bloomberg UTV (This is a popular mid cap scrip in the indian bourses. Any indian financial media that doesnt cover carborundum would not be doing its job properly). Again why was this nominated?--Sodabottle (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keepy Keepy per WP:CORP that was cited in the nomination. A very good reason for WP:Before. -SpacemanSpiff 21:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all keep !votes above. Salih (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Spiff. Shadowjams (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's more than enough coverage to signify notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per WP:CORP. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure on what basis this nomination could have been made--the nom. is a very responsible Wikipedian, but perhaps WP:BEFORE should be required to prevent us good guys from making this sort of error. DGG ( talk ) 13:20, 28 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 nominator and Phil Bridger have done a good job analysing the sources, notability is not established. Fences&Windows 00:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saša Milivojev[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Primarily sourced from one website. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The one source which, I suppose, the nominator had in mind seems to consist of the publication of one of the subject's poems followed by some reader-submitted reviews, so doesn't appear to be a reliable source. As regards the offline sources cited, the first two are too vaguely cited to identify properly and the third is to a radio broadcast, which, unless there is a publicly accessible archive recording or transcription, can't be said to be a verifiable source. The first two of the external links lead to writings by the subject, not about him, and the third is to a scanned copy of an interview with the subject in the Serbian Pravda, for which Milivojev also writes, so can't really be called independent. Looking through the search results in the Latin alphabet linked above the only reliable sources again seem to be to the subject's own writings in Politika rather than to be about him. Similar searches in Cyrillic find nothing better: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Worldcat doesn't list any of the subject's works and the Serbian library catalogue listed at WP:Book sources finds one of his works and says that four libraries hold it. In summary, I would expect any notable contemporary Serbian author to have reliable independent sources available online, but there don't seem to be any for this subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 23 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) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bun-sgoil Shlèite[edit]

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

This AfD arises from a prod placed by me and removed by the author of the article. The reason for removal was: The school is unique in being the only Gaelic medium primary school with an English medium unit, as the article states. Be that as it may, being unique or interesting does not mean that an organisation is notable. The article does not cite any independent coverage of the subject, so I have real questions about its notability. In addition, I understand (correct me if I am wrong) that primary schools are generally not considered notable per consensus here. I have found one piece of independent coverage of the school, here. I have a difficulty with this source: it is from February 2006, while the article and the school's website say the school opened in 2007. Mkativerata (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree with the nominator, that typically primary schools are not found to be notable. However, in that this particular school is Scotland's only Gaelic Medium School may make it worth inclusion. I was able to find some additional references as shown here [23]. Enough to establish notability? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference of note there is the Daily Record article highlighed in my nomination, which would ordinarily be a reasonable source if it wasn't a one-off piece of coverage and had dating issues (from 2006, school "opened" in 2007). Also, I don't think this is Scotland's only Gaelic medium school; the claim to notability is based on it being the only Gaelic medium school that also teaches English. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Skye. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve Hi. I started the article originally as the school is unique in being a Gaelic Medium primary school with an English medium unit within it. This arrangement was the result of the community being divided when Highland council first suggested that the then Sleat Primary School should become a Gaelic school rather than an English school with a Gaelic unit. Perhaps it would help the article if some of this background were included? I can certainly do that - infact I'll try to do it tonight! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Particularly if it can be sourced - coverage in addition to the Daily Record article linked above would be very useful. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The very fact that the school teaches in the Gaelic medium makes it notable. The article already has a number of sources testifying to its notability, including a BBC source. Very few schools are noteworthy enough to merit an article on the BBC website. Dahliarose (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (despite being the nom) largely on the basis of these sources demonstrating significant coverage of the school. Depending on how far Fishiehelper2 I might work on the article too to add the sources. I'm not withdrawing my nom as there remain valid reasons to merge or delete.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a BBC Web report and a linked video from a Lorna Gordon broadcast report. Sussexonian (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - incontrovertibly notable; in addition to the arguments above we can throw in this visual arts programme. TerriersFan (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. Ben Mac Dui 09:45, 24 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 FleetCommand did not ask me to nominate this in good faith. It's obviously a way to get back at Hm2k. Joe Chill (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel[edit]

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

The first reference is a trivial mention in a list. The second reference is a one sentence mention. The third reference is a blog. The external link is a download site. I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with nominator: This article fails to meet Wikipedia notability guideline. Fleet Command (talk) 19:14, 23 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 that the subject passes WP:GNG regardless of WP:ATHLETE. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Palmisano[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This individual is a career minor league baseball player, which in itself is not enough to establish notability. When I proposed deletion through WP:PROD, an editor noted that there was coverage of him. Having only now looked at those sources, I believe they are not sufficient to establish notability. This coverage is not significant (the ESPN article linked on Talk:Lou Palmisano isn't about him, and only briefly mentions his name, the others are fan sites and game recaps, which of course exist in the internet age. I'd like to see the result of this as we continue to consider the issue of notability for minor league baseball players. Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sorry to say at this time. Has not met the requirements , as established by Athlete, as he has not competed at a “…fully professional level of the sport” Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting aside any issues about minor leagues being fully professional, people who meet the general notability requirement are notable even if they fail WP:ATH. Rlendog (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Unusual level of accomplishment as a minor league player - Pioneer League MVP in 2003, Pioneer League All-Star in 2003 and Florida State League All-Star in 2004. Profiled in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and in Baseball America's 2004 Prospect Guide (subscribers-only online link), among other places. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know that MVP's of low-level minor league baseball are enough for notability, but I'm moved by the write-up in the Sun-Sentinel. A subscription-only link implies he's not notable outside a select group of insiders. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Baseball America link is subscribers only because it's reprinted content from an annual book they publish. If they didn't make it subscribers-only, nobody would buy the book. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:N per HBWS's sources. Rlendog (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ATHLETE (Minor league baseball is professional, see professional baseball) and passes WP:WPBB/N (article cites independent, reliable sources). --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I never said minor league baseball wasn't professional. It's not the highest level of competition though. From WP:WPBB/N: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." --Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It goes on to say that to establish notability they must cite independent and reliable sources. "Not assumed to be inherently notable" means just because they are baseball players doesn't mean they're notable, not that they are not notable no matter what. That wording is there so people don't create articles for players who don't get sufficient coverage. Also, I never said that you said MiLB wasn't professional. I wasn't addressing you, I was making an argument based on my interpretations of the guidelines. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not terribly notable. He never played at the highest level of baseball, in fact he never even reached the highest level of minor league baseball. Alex (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG as demonstrated above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per HBWS. Spanneraol (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Iron Warrior (newspaper)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Much unsourced factual information. --129.97.133.22 (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination completed for IP editor. snigbrook (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article, and there doesn't appear to be a significant amount of coverage from sources not associated with the subject. snigbrook (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect – To University of Waterloo Engineering which deserves an article here as shown by the following Google News hits [24]. If the author needs help in doing this, just drop me a line, more than happy to give a hand. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in the least, and the article is mostly just a long unsourced list of past editors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Live.love.laugh.dream (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even attempt to assert notability. A student paper published 5 times a year. So what? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:41, 30 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) 03:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Mui[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mui

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

I'm nominating this for exactly the same reason as the Mattias Nilsson article: it's original researching, and a retelling of the plots for the games. That's really all that can be said about it cut and dried. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for exactly the same reason:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction. Either is fine with me. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to game article -- although I'd instead suggest waiting for the Mattias Nilsson AfD to conclude and slap the same outcome on these articles, rather than wait 10 days days. (The single persistently-restoring editor indicated on one of these two articles' talk pages his willingness to abide by that decision.) Oh, well. --EEMIV (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound like Dr. Nobody, but I just migrated some of his content from the Mui article to the game article. I don't pretend to whip around his "you can't merge and delete!" trumpet, but it that's worth noting, there it is. --EEMIV (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your action seems improper as you failed to give credit to the true author of the work that you copied by cut/paste. This is a breach of our licence. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops; [genuine] apologies. Looks like it's been fixed, though. --EEMIV (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as unoriginal research, i.e. recurring playable character from two mainstream games is covered in multiple sources independent of the games. No reason why in even the extreme worst case scenario this article would be redlinked rather than redirected. Incidentally, when asked, "There's three characters in the game: are they all as important as each other? We've only really seen Mattias and his snazzy beard so far," the developers explained, "they're all as important as each other. There's been no grand plan, but you've probably seen more Mattias because he has a very distinctive look to him and has sort of become the poster boy for Mercs 2. But you can play the entire game as any of the characters and all are equally powerful and cool and have their unique attitude and presentation and cinematics. It's an equal opportunities experience for the three characters. Mattias has certainly had more than his share of the limelight, but you should like that; we're featuring the European guy!" References are pretty easy to find and I noticed a number of interviews beyond what I added (sorry I cannot do them all myself tonight as I have been taking care of a family member this past week). Definite potential here and beyond User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable in that this character has attracted some attention outside of fansites. Lots of good references already that we would at worst merge per WP:PRESERVE, although it seems definitely likely that we can get at least a DYK out of this one with some colloborative effort. Another possibility would be a character list of all three playable characters for which you can cite some development information from such interviews as this, where Scott Warner, Lead Designer, explains, "The three main player characters, Mattias Nilsson, Jennifer Mui and Chris Jacobs are all returning from the original Mercenaries....At their core each of three player characters are mercenaries at heart: they’re here to make money, operate outside of the rules of engagement and use their specialized skills to get the job done. This said, each is motivated by a different calling in life and this part of their character will inform how the story plays out, how other characters interact with them and how the world responds to their actions." Happy Holidays! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is one's a block quote and the other is a response to it. The kicker is there's no visible reliability to the first quote even: it's written by a contributor to the site even, and not a regular staff member. That doesn't fly as "reliable, third party coverage". I wish it did, because I welcome good articles on female characters. But it looks more like a mountain out of a molehill.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many hits in reviews, interviews, and previews that we can confirmed that this character is covered in numerous secondary sources and that she is a playable character in two major games, i.e. we have clear reason for either further expansion or arguably mergeing. There is however no need/reason to redlink. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well referenced, and too big to merge. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The characters are notable enough to be mentioned in all the game reviews. Plenty of information to fill an article. No sense in destroying it. Dream Focus 20:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. The majority of refs are even from sites that can be publicly edited! OR spotted as well. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion and certainly when not true due to the out of universe commentary on reliable website. This magazine, for example, is not a mere website and certainly not something anybody can edit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you and your friends don't like the words: "non-notable" & "cruft" doesn't make my argument any less valid. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your claim is that the refs are from wikiesque public cites, then that claim is simply not true. IGN and 1UP.com are reliable secondary sources and print magazines certainly are as well. "Notability" is subjective, but factually the information is verified in at least a couple issues of GameAxis Unwired, which is a print secondary source. Sincrely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the refs are poor, hence there are not enough refs to to represent notability. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the majority of the refs are quite good and it meets a common sense standard of notability. A character that appears in three games that appear on multiple systems, two strategy guides, and even a graphic novel who is familiar to millions of people worldwide is notable by an reasonable interpretation of that term. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not even "quite good": 1, 2 + 5 are just confirmations of the voice actor. 3 + 4 just confirm her appearance in the games. 6, 7 is a specialised source, not "independent of subject" (of course an interview with a game development staff member would mention her, it does not represent coverage in the media however.) 8 + 9 are game reviews that don't even mention that character by name, 8 isn't even correct! (does not mention Britpop) 10 is a BLOG! 11 is just a picture. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These out citations in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject are more than enough to justify inclusion on Wikipedia. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB + blogs are not "reliable" sources. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources found on Google News and Google Books are. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 refs from Google, both name-checks. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is of course multiple references from Google that go beyond names to address the development and reception of the character. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is only 2 refs from Google [25][26], both used in the first sentence of the article, just to confirm appearance in game i.e. "Name-check". Ryan4314 (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These numerous appearances that provide critical commentary on this notable character in what is admittedly multiple reliable sources is why this article will be kept. But anyway, as it has already been merged and therefore cannot be deleted per the GFDL, we are just going in circles here. You are not going to persuade me that such a notable and verifiable figures is not worthwhile. So, that's that, I guess. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced by me, the lack of any good refs proves this subject is non-notable. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, the majority of participants in this discussion correctly identify that the subject is notable due to numerous good references available for this subject as confirmed both in the article, but especially all the ones not yet incorporated into it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they will, especially not on your promise to "add better refs later". You've basically just conceded that the refs don't indicate notability. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still have yet to present any actual reason for deletion. If anything, you have acknowledged above that this character is indeed notable as pretty much everyone else believes as well and as has been demonstrated through the addition of reliable secondary sources demonstrating the character's notability. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deletion: Article's subject non-notable, poor referencing indicates lack of notability. I've stated this 4 times above. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because the article's subject is notable, good referencing indicates notability. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge into a combination article as usual for characters. That is, merge a very substantial amount of content, though possibly not quite as substantial as the present separate article. The virtue of a merged list over separate articles is that it can decrease repetition somewhat. Where characters take part in more than one work, a separate combination article them is much more useful and non-duplicative than merging to the main article of each of the separate works. Anyway, nominating for deletion implies a desire to not even have a redirect, and I challenge the nom for what he would not even want that. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains numerous sources and so the nomination's claim that this is original research seems to be quite false. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, who's nailed it. The usual suspects are unconvincing. giantbomb.com, indeed. Jack Merridew 06:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the three sentences that actually follow WP:WAF - "Development" and "Reception" - to the respective sections in the game article. Marasmusine (talk) 14:32, 27 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett Long[edit]

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

No sources other than directory-style websites, unclear notability snigbrook (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Though I do not agree with the subject matter, notability under Pornographic actors is established when an individual wins a nation/international award, which Mr. Long has done under the GayVN Awards, as shown at our article site. Does the present article contain inaccuracies and need a rewrite yes. But, that is not a reason for deletion. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:PORNBIO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO with GayVN Award win.[27] • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between IMAP and SMTP[edit]

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

Procedural nom; second PROD. 2nd prod rationale was "Nothing in this article is relevant to the name of the article". Original prod rationale was "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought (WP:NOT#OR) or a guidebook (WP:NOTGUIDE)" (This was me, apparently.) Marasmusine (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prodded before as apparent copy/paste; author removed prod without rationale. --JN 466 17:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unencyclopedically written original research. And a strange pair of protocols to compare since they are for quite different problems: one is for receiving mail, the other for sending mail. It would make far more sense to compare POP and IMAP, and one could probably even find reliable sources for such a comparison. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There're differences, but none of them are encyclopedic. Shadowjams (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There might even be encyclopedic differences if they are compared at the correct level, but this article revealed nothing of it. I removed all of the personal essay and how-to from the article, and nothing is left, so I copy-pasted the first sentences of the respective articles. This should have been speedied. It's just some kid's essay. Marasmusine, thanks for applying the correct prods even if they didn't work. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is already covered in Internet mail standard, although there are few incoming links for that page. Sussexonian (talk) 21:29, 27 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucadilly[edit]

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

Implicitly contested prod. After the prod tag was added, a disclaimer was added to the beginning of the article by the creator: Before reading this please take into account that this street does not exist. Indeed it doesn't, but that doesn't matter. Even as an element of fiction it doesn't even come close to meeting the relevant notability guideline. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—outrageously non-notable, really. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced, lacks assertion or implication of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G7. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verticus[edit]

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

Non-notable project. At this point, the proposed skyscraper is just that, a proposal, one of thousands of such proposals that get made and go nowhere. When (if) the project goes forward and receives some press, it will probably become notable. But not before. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While creating this nomination, the author requested page deletion by blanking the page. ((db-author)) has been placed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:08, 23 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Smithy Cup[edit]

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

This seems to be an article on a trophy awarded in a local fantasy sports league and as such is not notable. The article was previously PROD but the tag was removed with no reason by the author. Malcolma (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, no independent or reliable coverage. snigbrook (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very clear delete. An online 12 team fantasy sports league. Hmm. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:11, 23 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) 03:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Hardeman[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources apart from passing mention in Newsweek article (cited). Last article of a former Wikipedia:Walled garden, the rest of which have been speedied or AFD'd: see creator's user talk page. Under-referenced section on early and personal life suggests WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIO: [28]. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a delightfully written article that has no available sourcing per Google News, and nothing but social, personal, fan, or Self-published websites found with a regular Google search. We might userfy it to its author until such time as Hardeman gets some recognition.... but as of now, the BLP fails inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Comment agreed, especially about userfying: I suspect the subject will be notable in a few years' time. MuffledThud (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment - I can accept that. I just spent the last hour and a half reading all the articles on notability, COI, Walled Gardens, proper sourcing, Google searches, etc. I do now have a better understanding of how all this works. To take the mystery out of all this, yes it is an AUTOBIO of sorts, edited by Livewire legend and myself. I found the articles Wikipedia:No_amount_of_editing_can_overcome_a_lack_of_notability and Wikipedia:An_article_about_yourself_is_nothing_to_be_proud_of not only humourous, but quite helpful.

We'd be happy to userfy this page, until such a date as the subject is indeed notable according to the guidelines.

Archer Drezelan (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ditto for the film Life As We Knew It. (film) I'll be sure to contact User:Cirt to ask about moving it to the sandbox.

Livewire legend (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note that User:Archer Drezelan and User:Livewire legend have been accused of WP:Sockpuppetry, along with an anonymous IP and a third account, which attempted respectively to blank this discussion and remove the AFD notice from Lucas Hardeman. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Killercali. MuffledThud (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, why should we be punished for some other jackass who blanked the page? Archer Drezelan and I both have admitted to our mistake. Do a checkuser on killercali; we don't know who that is! I'm asking to save the page, or userfy or whatever you call it; and to let us keep our accounts. That's all.Livewire legend (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article are mostly blogs, websites that are affiliated with the subject, or passing mentions. A Google News Archive search returns no relevant results, and this is the same with a Google Books search. This article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G7. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revolver Presents: The Dark Side[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an allmusic.com review [29] Polarpanda (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which isn't enough. Joe Chill (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe the one Allmusic review is quite enough to meet WP:NALBUMS, either. I can not find any other coverage for this. Gongshow ^Talk 19:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is coming from the person who created it. I wasn't aware of the NALBUMS policy when I created the article. and now that I've read it I agree it isn't notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FinalWish (talk • contribs) 20:39, 26 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. Only one SPA wants to keep, against the otherwise unanimous conclusion that this character is not notable. Fences&Windows 00:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batyanya[edit]

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

Aside from online aliases for random people, I see no hits for this guy on a Google search. I can't even figure out which novels, if any, he features in. This is ~~either a subtle hoax, or~~ a non-notable fictional figure. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See no hits for this guy on a Google? Check this [30] (besides, this is Google). -- g@s-ua.com 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And a few more on a Yahoo[31]. -- g@s-ua.com 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SerdechnyG (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying: At least, non-notable in the English speaking world. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were no notes or remarks that these categories of fictional characters are only related to English speaking world. -- g@s-ua.com 16:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete either hoax or very non-notable. Points to consider (1) Article does not name what books/series the characters appears in. (2) "Sergei Zverev" the claimed author, is indeed a famous person, but he's a fashion designer and pop singer, not a writer. (3) Googling "Batyanya" or "Батяня" and using image search does not produce any book covers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2,3) please check [32] "Sergei Zverev" as a writer. At least 6 pages of his books. By the way, it is Google. Yes, of course, this article is just an interpretation of the russian one. And maybe not the best interpretation. So "delete or not to delete" is up to you now. -- g@s-ua.com 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

1) "Article does not name what books/series the characters appears in." Now it does. Please check. -- g@s-ua.com 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

per What? -- g@s-ua.com 21:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SerdechnyG (talk • contribs)

I'd just added a few References (e.g. north-american resource "russlovo.com") -- g@s-ua.com 12:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SerdechnyG (talk • contribs)
- Comment I'm sorry, but simply being available for sale isn't sufficient to establish notability. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But above mentioned references is nothing more than just an evidence that this character exists, and it's possible to read about his adventures even in USA (or Finland, for instance). It's difficult for me, to judge the notability of the novels or its protagonist in English speaking world -- g@s-ua.com 19:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.162.218.218 (talk)

At least, please give me a few criteria of notable fictional figure. -- g@s-ua.com 09:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SerdechnyG (talk • contribs)

Actually, I added this article because there were no such adjectives like 'national' or 'american', etc., before Fictional special forces personnel category. -- g@s-ua.com 11:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SerdechnyG (talk • contribs)
Delete - No evidence character has notability separate from series. Redirect to series or author article if they exist (it looks like they don't). If article or redirect is kept, not that character's (nick)name is Batyánya, not Batyanya. --EEMIV (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. There is no article about author nor about series. This article is just an interpretation of its russian original. -- g@s-ua.com 10:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SerdechnyG (talk • contribs)

Delete, possibly speedily per A2 - Fictional character without individual notability. Create an article about the book(s), which will be judged on its own merit. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 08:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not having the same content as an article on another Wikimedia project (russian wiki). It's not a direct translation, because there is some words and wordforms which couldn't be translated directly, and some notions which does not exist outside russian culture. It is rather an explanation. So A2 doesn't rule in such very case. Besides, what merits do You mean? -- g@s-ua.com 14:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SerdechnyG (talk • contribs)

Dear Colleagues, I suggest a short break in our dispute, approximately till the January 3rd. Thanks for your well-reasoned comments. And Happy New Year! -- g@s-ua.com 14:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SerdechnyG (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Industrial Revolution[edit]

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

Appears to be an OR essay/research paper. ukexpat (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speculation, WP:SOAP, also attempts to coin neologisms. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Change Name. It's not an Industrial Revolution if it is shutting down industry, could be re-named to the Green Revolution. Or just delete, as suggested. Ggoere (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Revolution already exists, but it refers to the technology introduced in the mid-20th-Century to increase agricultural output, and has nothing to do with modern environmentalism. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR Essay. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the talk page: "Please help improve this page to the wikipedia standards. It has survived one deletion already, and if deleted again, this information may be lost forever. ~ * ~ Blue Lunar Storm ~ * ~ (talk) 7:23 pm, 4 December 2009, Friday (19 days ago) (UTC−5)".\

Reply... not a good argument at AfD. ... If Blue Lunar Storm is worried, he/she can copy this essay to a personal web page so it won't be "lost forever". Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was not deleted before now due to backlogs and/or procedural errors.[33] It could have been deleted as a PROD nomination. Vassyana (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. McDonough's Cradle to Cradle approach has been called a "new industrial revolution" [34] but this article embroiders that basic with a variety of OR on Green and biomimetics topics that have no affiliation with that label. It's also a very common catchphrase [35] for many kinds of initiative, again in many cases nothing to do with the picture presented in the article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:48, 28 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) 03:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Simms[edit]

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

Prodded by User:BrownHairedGirl and deprodded by User:DGG, this associate professor does not meet WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I could find were primary sources and Wikipedia mirrors. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain I deprodded because I was uncertain, and thought the math people should have a look at it. . His papers are not highly cited, but I see him as the author of two book-length vols. in distinguished series, series, Simms, David John, and N. M. J. Woodhouse. Lectures on Geometric Quantization. Lecture notes in physics, 53. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1976., and Simms, David John. Lie Groups and Quantum Mechanics. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 52. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1968. Though called by the deceptively informal title of lecture notes, they are major highly respected advanced secondary publications , generally written by experts. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Irish Times story linked from our article is about his wife, so it doesn't help. I did find another newspaper story about him, but it doesn't say anything about his academic notability (it's about his objection to a plan to build a factory near his holiday home) and would be a pretty slim basis on which to build a case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think his membership in the Royal Irish Academy may be enough for WP:PROF #3. I'm not convinced that the books are quite enough for WP:PROF #1, but at least they provide some substance to his record beyond the academy membership. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I would have liked to see more coverage, but membership in the Royal Irish Academy is indeed a significant honor, so probably passes WP:PROF on that basis. Nsk92 (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not mention this membership, even though it has been around since 2004. His webpage also makes no mention of it. He comes from a well-known academic family and was was elected to the Irish Royal Academy in 1978. Given these facts, the lack of secondary sources and the fact that he retired as an associate professor, I say that the membership in the Irish Royal Academy should be considered anomalous. Abductive (reasoning) 15:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF 3 by virtue of membership in the Royal Irish Academy, where he is also on the editorial board of the Academy's Mathematical Proceedings. --JN 466 03:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on basis of above discussion. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
keep - has authored good books. That's it.--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim would carry greater weight if you would give sources for it. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

- The books referred there in Simms's page - hope this helps. Lie group is a complicated theory compared to --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same guy who proposed to delete this is proposing to delete S. M. Sarangi the one I authored.

--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the at least one of the books were notable in their own right then there might be something to that argument, but writing a good book isn't the criterion. If one of the books were notable then this should be a redirect to the book. So I think the most promising argument here is the RAI membership. There are two sections of membership, SCI and HON SCI. The HON SCI is the more prestigious and has such luminaries as Roger Penrose. But the subject is in the SCI section. There are several hundred members of the RAI with this level membership and about 20 in the area of mathematics, so while it's certainly an honor I'm not convinced that it's the "highly selective" honor that WP:PROF #3 requires. (Ireland is a small country after all.) Usually notability in WP:PROF doesn't come down #3 alone; you generally have to something else notable to qualify for a highly selective membership, so I'm a bit wary when #3 is the sole criterion being used. So while I'm leaning toward delete at the moment, there are still open issues such as exactly how prestigious is the MRIA title and what were the accomplishments that led to the subject receiving it.--RDBury (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe that this section of notability is screwed up. Ten or less participating cannot be called as Consensus. I'm finding here all through various opinions which are biased and politicized. I suggest removing the “notability” and just keeping the “celebrities”. A mathematician who is an expert on Topology may not be an expert on Algebra. Everyone tries to poke here. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:17, 27 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Healing[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable spiritual healing technique. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I was this close to tagging this for speedy deletion when I saw it on the new pages list, but then I thought people would jump down my throat since this subject is covered here, here, I think here, a five-minute news report you can watch here, and 504,997 other Google hits I don't feel like looking through. On the other hand, (1) this is stupid, and (2) WP:FRINGE. It's particularly troublesome that this article already presents unsourced claims like "[a]lmost all participants say Theta healing has had a positive effect," when two of the top five Google autocomplete options for "theta healing" are "theta healing scam" and "theta healing fraud." Glenfarclas (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be possible to write a valid article about "theta healing" based on this source, but the current article has no useful content. It should be deleted unless at least a valid stub is put there. Looie496 (talk) 14:39, 25 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Know Your Heritage[edit]

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

Notability is not demonstrated in the article and there are no references. Google search verifies existence of show but does not show much notability. It seems to be a minor, local show. There is some local news coverage but it seems minor. Apparently there was an attempt to blackmail one of the hosts and that gets a bit of coverage but it does not seem to be related to the show. Unless there are any significant awards, national recognition or national coverage then I think it fails notability. DanielRigal (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It exists, and that's pretty much all there is to say about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable local show. Joe Chill (talk) 16:26, 23 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 per author request. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hartley Cromek[edit]

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

Copied verbatim from The Yorkshire magazine: a monthly literary magazine, Volume 2, copyright of this work is not clear. RadioFan (talk) 13:28, 23 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tones (Band)[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:BAND. Article created by a single-purpose account called Thetonescoventry (talk · contribs), suggesting a conflict of interest. SnottyWong talk 11:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any in-depth coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to pass WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 23:57, 25 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Fist[edit]

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

This article cites two sources: one is a piece on salon.com that does not mention the group by name, the other is a posting advertising membership on a MySpace forum. A quick Google did not find any useful sources to replace them, the number of hits is very low and many are, ahem, not relevant. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Existed for less than two years and had no particular accomplishments or lasting legacy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To the group's credit, I can find what is somewhat more than a passing mention, reprinting their mission statement and discussing their tactics, in the book Queer Youth Cultures here. However, even that doesn't really amount to "significant" coverage, and in the absence of anything else this seems like a non-notable, minor group. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of those, ahem, Ghits, do NOT show notability, and I can't prove they had any effect, so delete. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:44, 30 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu van Bellen[edit]

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

Notability. This still-on-training young violinist, though I am sure he is very talented, hasn't made any impact in the classical music world and does not meet the notability criteria:

Hasn't been the subject of media coverage.
Has made no recordings.
Hasn't won a major competition. Yes, he was a contestant in the Menuhin and the Wieniawski Competition, but he did not make it to the finals. The Emily Anderson Prize is a scholarship and not a prize.
Hasn't performed with a major orchestra as soloist.
The list includes big names of people he has studied with but none of people performed with.

I think this performer might be notable in the future, but he does not deserve an article now. Karljoos (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 10:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music - Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationale of the nominator with no prejudice to re-creation if at a future time, this young artist becomes notable. I've done a search on the subject. There is no evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. The only appearance as a soloist with an orchestra appears to be with the Worcester Philharmonic Orchestra, an amateur group. Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and recreate later if he becomes notable. --Deskford (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he could well become notable, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and rherfore article shoudl not exist until something happens.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe notable someday, but not today. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 23 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. Tone 20:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aristeidis Kollias[edit]

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

Trivial, non-notable personage. Forgot to mention he's just another fringe-lunatic national mysticist crackpot author who has never written anything of value. Athenean (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fail WP:NOTE, I doubt if googling his name in Greek will help much but here goes Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Polarpanda (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability.Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Ptolion (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. His works in Albania are greatly appreciated for the contribution that he has given onto the Arvanite question.--sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. There is people with much little value with wiki pages. If it is so unimportant how come all these above people (including editors) know him and his work. Please note that his work has raised controversial feelings in Greece (that is why he has also shot to death) and for this reason you have the whole bunch of greeks above trying to get rid of him. As far as I know being controversial does not mean you do not have a place in wikipedia. Ran a Google research and found a lot of english books where his work was used as a reference^[1].--Lceliku (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, more of another Albanian nationalistic trick in creating celebrities out of virtually unknown persons. "That's why he has shot to death"? You must be kidding. He died the most natural possible death. I only found that someone Arben Lala a known ultra nationalist in the "Albania" newspaper claimed that he had been poisoned..! by the Serbians..!![36] Since you insist that he had rather been shot to death by the Greeks, please find a way to have a constructive dialogue with Mr. Lala and come again to inform us about the results. --Factuarius (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus after two weeks of discussion JForget 18:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESi-RISC[edit]

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

No evidence of notability under WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge If some indication of notability not produced by the processor's maker is discovered then merge else delete. Although not exhaustive, my search yielded only the maker's PR. Dethlock99 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging with the company's article would best serve wikipedia. Dethlock99 (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 19:57, 16 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) 09:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did either of you even do a search? I did a google search on "eSi-RISC", and found the following articles in the first 10 results: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. On brief inspection, most of these appear on the surface to be independent, reliable sources. While the article needs a massive cleanup, the subject looks notable to me. SnottyWong talk 12:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those mostly look like recycled press releases to me. Polarpanda (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Recycled press releases generally have similar or exact wording. All of these articles appear to have been independently written. SnottyWong talk 16:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your examples include blogs and product announcement pages from specialized sources within a field. In your first example, most of the article is a quote from the manufacturer. The author, quite properly, quoted what the manufacturer told him. It doesn't appear that any of the reviewers have tested the product and are just parroting back what the manufacturer has told them. I think wikipedia would be better with a paragraph under the company and a redirect rather than a separate article. Are you or do you know an expert in this field? Dethlock99 (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the company. That article already has a section on these processors and any omissions can be easily fixed by adding facts from this article. My rationale for redirecting is that while there is coverage in reliable news articles, such as the Electronics Weekly example, there are no in-depth articles with detailed descriptions or analysis. This may be because these processors have only been recently announced, in November 2009, if I am not mistaken. Publications that are more detailed than just news, such as Microprocessor Report, can take a month or two after the product announcement before they have an article about it. That said, I don't think that these processors will be notable any time soon, if ever. Embedded microprocessors are numerous, both in terms of architectures and implementations, but only a small number of them are notable. The notability of these processors should be judged by the depth of coverage, those implementing the ARM or MIPS ISAs have have four- to eight-page articles in the Microprocessor Report, these do not at this time. Finally, having read the above comments, I think it is important that it is understood that these processors are not consumer products. There are no reviews (of the "popular tech" type) for this kind of processor; the closest thing to a review would be a Microprocessor Report article with an analyst's opinion. Rilak (talk) 06:35, 24 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 arguments to keep, no indication that further time will lead to more discussion Kevin (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dominianni[edit]

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

Contested prod - No real claim to notability, it is not established either. Does not appear to meet wp:creative Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:55, 16 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) 09:14, 23 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) 10:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Todd Richmond[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker. Article does not meet WP:BIO and WP:RS requirements. Warrah (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 20:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One non-notable short film and another film in production does not add up to an established director, and there is nothing to indicate any coverage of him that meets WP:BIO or any other notability guideline. --RL0919 (talk) 21:18, 16 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) 09:12, 23 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Atrial Fibrillation[edit]

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

Delete. No outside independent reference on notability: both for individual papers and the journal itself. Nahrizuladib (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Nahrizuladib (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DOAJ listing assures that this is a scholarly journal. It doesn't provide much info to reference though, and NLM (haven't checked other library catalogs) haven't written anything independent on it, so it would be a very short stub (still better than nothing in my opinion). Narayanese (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and recheck in 6 months I doubt this is a hoax, but as a new journal, it will be hard to find good sourcing that demonstrates its notability. Check back in 6 months to a year, maybe? By then it should have gained at least the attention of a major medical library. Bonewah (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a brief mention of it in an article about the recent profusion of new cardiology journals:[43] At least it's in PubMed.[44] Fences&Windows 02:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the cover image it is already 18 months old which means it has 5-6 issues out already. There's no point in waiting as Bonewah suggested. That said, journals tend not to be written about much; its notability should be determined based on the impact of the material it has published and the editors and organizations attached to the journal. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:05, 17 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) 09:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very young journal, no independent sources. Also, no encyclopedic content in article. Think about it; the title tells you all you need to know; it's a journal about Atrial Fibrillation. Abductive (reasoning) 21:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY no significant 3rd party coverage or any impact which would indicate notability. RP459 (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Journals generally don't have "3rd party coverage" as one normally expects, but I would like to see a "real" service indexing the journal ([45]) or some 3rd party review (other than announcements) -- neither of which I found, but only on a quick google search. If these exist, I would love to reconsider. jheiv (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In contrast to what is mentioned on the journal's site, it is not indexed in PubMed. --Crusio (talk) 09:57, 28 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) 10:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Nordin[edit]

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

I could wrong about this since WP:ATHLETE is extremely liberal, but what makes someone a "Pro Figure athlete"? In comparison to Monica Brant for instance, who has a long list of participation in professional events (one of which she won), Nordin's page doesn't even list one such competition. I doubt that being on the cover on Iron Man Magazine is the fitness equivalent of being a Playboy Playmate, which would be a criteria analogous to WP:PORNBIO—"figure" seems to be about looks. But I could be wrong not knowing much about this area. Pcap ping 12:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've canvassed WP:WikiProject Bodybuilding. Pcap ping 13:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. I don't think she was supposed to be a (pro)(figure athlete), but rather a (Pro Figure)(athlete), where "Pro Figure" is [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&num=30&q=%22pro+figure%22+competition&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=b36c7832dbb01be6 some sort of pageant/competition. In her favor, she gets a decent number of Google hits, has some coverage in the muscle blogs, and her Wikipedia article isn't the #1 Google result, which is so often an indicator of fake notability. However, I really can't find much of anything in reliable sources, and no indication she meets WP:ATHLETE, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. --Glenfarclas (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on her blog (her other site is dead) she seems to be professional fitness model, meaning she shoots for fitness magazines, seels stuff under her personal brand etc., although in this line of buisness it's a tad difficult to separate the athletic "persona" from the entertainer/model "persona". But I suspect she fails WP:ENTERTAINER too as a model, since the wiki standard there is rather high. Someone knowledgeable in fitness magazines, who I'm sure would enjoy perusing her blog too, could perhaps take a look. Pcap ping 19:16, 16 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) 09:09, 23 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) 14:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Gunners Selection Course[edit]

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

This is a strange one. It's about the change from a military program called the Potential Gunners Acquaintance Course to one called the Potential Gunners Selection Course. Author removed PROD claiming he added more sources; problem is, none of his six sources, nor anything I can find on Google, mentions anything about a "Selection Course." The Acquaintance Course seems to be going strong. Fails WP:V. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:23, 16 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) 09:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it presently stands the article lacks sufficient second or third party sources to meet notability requirements. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus after two weeks and good arguments on all options JForget 18:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School of Health and Rehabilitation (Keele University)[edit]

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

There's no reason to have a separate article here -- it fails WP:ORG on its own and should be merged to Keele University. The general idea of course is that we don't have separate articles on departments/schools -- just a single article on the university. (I had carried out a merge after no objection to proposal on talk page -- but another editor has now reversed this.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - normally I would agree with a merge. However, this school previously had an independent existence as the Oswestry and North Staffordshire School of Physiotherapy which would be notable. With this history there is significant scope for expansion to deal with the previous incarnation. Needs sourcing, obviously, but that is an editorial matter. TerriersFan (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nomoskedasticity

Keep - I presume you have read my message on your talk page. This article has been present on Wikipedia for some time and has not met with any previous objection. The current justification for removing this article is "the general idea of course". If this is in fact a "general idea" then this is somewhat short of a rational justification for the deletion of this article. A "general idea" does not indicate that this article is in breach of Wikipedia rules or regulations. This article is not attempting to advertise or promote for commercial or non-commercial purposes this specific department or institution.

Your prior justification was that this School was not particularly notable or worthy of a separate article. I trust that my reply appropriately challenged this assumption. This article is a valid and informative article on a notable department within an academic institution. Other departments within academic institutions appear to have such articles written about them with no such objections.

If this article does explictly breach Wikipedia rules or regulations then please be much more accurate in indicating this breach by refering directly to the rules or regualtions. If it does not explicitly breach regulation, then the justification for deleting this article appears to be largely subjective and I would strongly object to an article being deleted on what would appear to be personal opinion.

Happy to discuss this further.

Bluelegend (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that Nomoskedasticity hasn't worded his nomination statement particularly well so some explanation might assist. Organizations should meet WP:ORG in order to merit an article. WP:RS and WP:CITE are also relevant. Whilst it is normal for articles to be assessed against these guidelines, at AfD we also try to have an element of consistency. Based on that, medical and law schools usually get articles but other departments generally don't unless there is a specific reason (as I have identified here). I would add a caveat. Independent, reliable sources need to be added to stand up the claims in the page. If such sources cannot be found, even if this page is kept (and it is much too soon to say it will be), then the article might come back for a deletion/merge discussion in the future. TerriersFan (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for your comment TerriersFan. If there are issues with citations, independent references etc. to support the statements in this article, then as editorial issues these can be dealt with. There does not however appear to be a valid justification for the rationale behind the inclusion of articles relating to Medical and Law Schools (which are often departments of HEIs) and the aparent exclusion of other departments/schools. From an outside-in perspective, this appears inconsistent. This Policy (informal in its nature) does appear to question the academic standing of other disciplines, without any reliable justification; this is inappropriate. In this case you have suggested keeping the article based on the School's previous independent incarnation (i would agree with this), but the notion of deleting an article about a School because is not Department/School of Medicine or Law cannot be justified.

Bluelegend (talk) 21:12, 18 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) 09:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Since it is standard practice for universities to subdivide into schools, colleges, departments and sometimes divisions, separate articles on them need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. I can't find any secondary sources that say there is anything remarkable about this school, or its predecessors Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The article makes no claim of notability for the school and reads like an "about us" webpage. Ideally, this page will be deleted, since its title is not the name of the school, and a redirect created for Oswestry and North Staffordshire School of Physiotherapy to Keele University. Abductive (reasoning) 16:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge We sometimes do keep articles for the larger major divisions of the most important universities--see any such article--Columbia, UCLA, Harvard, etc. This is a good university, but not at that sort of internationally-famous level. This is a relatively small unit, essentially the equivalent of a department, mot a major first-level unit. That they choose to call it a separate "school" makes no difference--it is still only 250 students. 2 BA programs, 4 small masters', and all in a single rather small building, judging from the photograph. We do discriminate between the degree of coverage different colleges and departments based on their importance. It will still be covered, but in the university article. Covering everything to an equal extent regardless amounts to being a directory, not an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep & comment Again the discussion and rationale for removing this article is not consistent or objective. Above comments relate to importance, or "international fame" status. How exactly has such importance or status been deduced? A number of Alumni may disagree with the above assessment, including MPs and other notable figures (including the son of a UN secretary general). The University has also made significant contributions in various disciplines, developments relating to the cochlea implant to name one. The School in this article is not big in terms of size but this relates to the fact that it is involved in education and research pertaining to very specific and relatively small science based vocational disciplines. As a result this article may be of significant interest to those in the rehabilitation field. The size issue is not therefore sufficient to warrant removing the article. Another comment relates to the School not being a "major first-level unit". The results of the 2008 & 2009 National Student Survey can challenge this. This can be verified by visiting www.unistats.co.uk and entering Physiotherapy. If this article is to be removed then the rationale needs strengthening and should take account of the specific field within which this school operates. Without this then a largely subjective result will emerge which is not desirable or appropriate.

Bluelegend (talk) 18:56, 29 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. . Several editors opined "Keep and tag as unsourced", which is odd, given that the article already has been tagged as unsourced since May 2007. There was plenty of time to add sources. That this hasn't happened is an indication that either nobody is interested in improving this article, or there simply are no relevant sources. By contrast, EALacey's argument that it's not a term or art is convincing and has not been refuted. — Sebastian 07:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notational bias[edit]

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

Notational bias contains no sources. Most of the text consists of three examples. One of them is definitely ridiculous (the programming example), one explains the common fact that multiple choice questions aren't perfect (but that's not a bias), and one ("writing down music western style more or less directs one to writing Western music") that could be a "notational bias" but i don't think it really is a bias. Without any sources, this article should be deleted. Joepnl (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with all of Joeph's arguments.Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag as unsourced. A Google Scholar search finds lots of relevant uses and confirms the definition. Recury (talk) 01:39, 17 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) 09:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some academic articles may combine the words "notational" and "bias", but that doesn't mean that "notational bias" is a term of art. Since "notation" is not a single subject (our entry on notation is a disambiguation page), it's unsurprising that the purported examples of "bias in notation" have nothing to do with each other. EALacey (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding sources, Google Scholar currently finds 17 results for "notational bias". There are vastly more results for verbal bias (307), aesthetic bias (345), military bias (384), demographic bias (462), ethical bias (463), conceptual bias (801) and visual bias (1,350), none of which are the subject of Wikipedia articles. It's possible that some of these are the technical names of well-defined topics, but high numbers of Google Scholar hits don't prove that. On the other hand, the low number of hits for "notational bias" does strongly suggest that it's just two words being used together on an ad hoc basis. EALacey (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. May be I should elaborate a bit more on this nomination, especially the multiple choice example. A bias occurs when someone reaches a certain conclusion because there is an unseen error in the methods used. If you make a multiple-choice question "what's your favority hobby", the outcome "only 17% of children like base ball best" could be biased because the questionnaire was filled in by 80% girls, a fact the researcher didn't know or properly correct for. He will, however, know that a multiple-choice question is not a good idea for this kind of question, and moreover, he won't draw the conclusion "no one likes foot ball" if that option wasn't listed. Joepnl (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fact that the article doesn't currently cite any sources isn't a reason to delete it. If sources do not exist that is a good argument for deletion, however as noted above there are sources available. Hut 8.5 21:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag as unsourced. The articles on Linguistic relativity and Language and thought explain similar concepts regarding language. Angrysockhop ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 06:15, 26 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Present to the Newborn[edit]

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

Contested Prod Non-notable book, I get only a handful of hits every where I look. Ridernyc (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: can't find non-trivial independent published sources discussing it, so it fails notability as per the guideline. --Slashme (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Slashme, I can't find anything at all significant either. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any sources. The book was also published under the title "A Primer for Positive Parenting", however that gets hardly any hits either. Being recommended (along with loads of other books) by two parenting courses doesn't confer notability. Hut 8.5 21:18, 23 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 Comparison of ISO image software. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of ISO image software[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nomination description: This page is content fork of Comparison of ISO image software and contains similar information, only formatted differently. There is no need to keep two copies of the same information.

Reason for re-nomination: I am renominating this page for deletion, because the last nomination was abruptly halted when Hm2k (talk · contribs) claimed that he has merged the pages. Well, he tricked us: He just copied the contents of Comparison of ISO image software into List of ISO image software, thus causing the original reason for nomination (similarity of contents) to remain unresolved. He further reverted my attempt to delete the duplicate information. I suggest the nominated contents to be deleted. (I'm also suggesting disciplinary action but that is beside the matter.) Fleet Command (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The list and comparison contain different information, I will restore the merge. Once merged the content can be discussed on the talk page. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update Remerge has now been completed. If you would like to discuss improving the content, please use the talk page. Thank you. --Hm2k (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop lying. We do not fall for your lies this time. There is something called "page history" . You didn't merge. You just appended. Content Fork problem persists. Hiding the problem doesn't solve anything. Content Fork issues should be discussed and resolved through consensus not through such acts of bad faith. Fleet Command (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comparison of ISO image software now redirects to List of ISO image software#Comparison. Armbrust (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Fleet Command[reply]

Not anymore. Fleet Command (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge was completed. Content concerns can be discussed using talk. This can be closed. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another deception. Perhaps our fellow Wikipedian Hm2k (talk · contribs) is under the impression that we are computers or robots and hiding the problem would solve it. It is not. We are human editors aimed to deliver reliable knowledge to human. Procedures like deletion and talk page are all means to aid in this endeavor and not means with which to bash one another. To that end, the problem of content fork (presence of duplicate contents) on Wikipedia, which hampers the effective delivery of knowledge and causes confusing and loss of time, must be resolved: Either by deleting a copy of duplicate content or by proper merging.

Now, Hm2k has selected a deceptive path: To trick us into thinking that the issue is resolved by keeping both copies of problematic content in the same article and undoing any attempt to resolve this issue, only because he has personal problems with me, FleetCommand (talk · contribs).

Either delete one of the two copy or merge properly. Only then, I will abandon the matter.

Thanks

— Fleet Command (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, Hm2k: Threatening to ban me from Wikipedia, for doing the right thing, won't stop me from doing the right thing. Fleet Command (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling troll and won't be engaging you in discussion any further. Intervention is required, you have been reported. --Hm2k (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I commented out some borderline personal attacks. Let's try to stay civil here. Thanks, TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge properly. There should only be a single table of information (with a single row for each program).
The content belongs at the page title [Comparison of ...], though it might be better to merge the content into the [List of ...] article first, as it has the oldest/original information, and then pagemove/rename that to [Comparison of ...] once the merge is properly completed.
Ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing if you'd like advice on the specifics of formatting, layout, column content, etc.
Be nice, be calm. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the comparison article. The comparison article is more mature and this list is just redundant. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Intent[edit]

I copy-edited this list a long time ago. I standardized the descriptions somewhat, using defined words to indicate capabilities. I did not intend for this article to be a comparison but a true list. A true list has benefits such as

Lists are easy to add on to
Lists focus on descriptions

I agree that this article has been turned into a comparison and has become nearly redundant, although the descriptions here are still formatted nicely and display better than the crammed-up table in the comparison article. If we do not have volunteer support to return this article to list format, then it should probably be deleted. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The merge is good enough, but we should retain the page history & also have only a single article. I'm surprised at the vitriolic comments here. --Karnesky (talk) 20:54, 24 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 _{Help review good articles} 18:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs Young[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league manager. Alex (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 23 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Wuffli[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player/manager. However, he did have a long minor league career, with over 1,800 hits. So that may be enough to establish some notability. Alex (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is 1,800 hits a record of some sort? If so, and there's noteworthy press about it, I'll change my mind. But I doubt it, so I'll say not notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only reference cited is a statistics site; doesn't meet notability criterion for minor league players/managers in WP:BASE/N. (Note that Wikipedia is not a directory.) BRMo (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BASE/N. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 30 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Wren[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player and manager. Alex (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'd like to see this one survive, but it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only source cited is a statistics site; doesn't meet notability criterion for minor league players/managers in WP:BASE/N. (Note that Wikipedia is not a directory.) BRMo (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Spanneraol (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASE/N. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 30 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 Gerald Donald along with Arpanet (producer). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arpanet (band)[edit]

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

There is another page with more information about this group under Arpanet (producer). I feel that since that one is the more complete page Arpanet (band) should either be deleted or merged into Arpanet (producer). - Human historian (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, assuming they are better known/more notable as a producer than as a band - if not, it seems to me that the more "complete" one shouldn't be an issue as, either way, it can be merged into a better fit. Zelse81 (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both Arpanet (band) and Arpanet (producer) into Gerald Donald. We don't usually have separate articles for people and their pseudonyms, do we? At a bare minimum merge the band and producer articles. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Arpanet (producer). If you think a redirect is in order, there's no point in taking it to AfD, because you don't need admin powers to do it. Just do it yourself. — Gwalla | Talk 23:08, 25 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 and redirect to Barack Obama assassination threats#Hawaii threats against Michelle Obama. –xeno^talk 16:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Obama assassination plot in Hawaii[edit]

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

One lonely, possibly deranged ("although her mission is to assassinate the president she has no desire to hurt him" -wtf?) woman says something about "blow away", it's covered in the news and we call it a "plot"? I don't think this is notable, even if there are 5 webpages reporting it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work. --MisterWiki talk contribs 04:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barack Obama. Not relevant to have it's own page. - Human historian (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, however it needs a little patching up. Alex (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the keep-voters: are we Entertainment Tonight? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we are Saturday Night Live. :) TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable, like the 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver and 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee. These article were declared notable before and Obama was merely a candidate then, not President. The article does need some improvement in writing but that doesn't mean delete. The Barack Obama article is already too long. JB50000 (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Don't you need more than one person for it to be a plot? Northwestgnome (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE, the shortcutless section above PERSISTENCE on depth of coverage...we don't need an article for every slow news day two paragraph writeup from (the online equivalent of) page C23. — æk ^Talk 07:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Barack Obama assassination threats, per below comments. — æk ^Talk 05:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not even sure this warrants a passing mention somewhere in the Obama article, but at the moment I'm leaning towards no, not even. This is a news item. We're an encyclopedia. End. JBsupreme (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a passing news item, with no long-term significance. Every other issue in this article could be fixed with 30 minutes worth of editing, but not the notability problem. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps there needs to be an article (List of) Barack Obama assassination attempts? NtheP (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Probably is unaware of attempts to create an article (blanked out by some) at Obama assassination scares[reply]

I was just about to post that, but I saw you thought up of it already. I agree completely, and may start the article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an attempt. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:PERSISTENCE. This was a flash in the pan news story that had no lasting significance. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially a story about a woman picking up a telephone and making threats, not much of a plot. I think that this and the other two quasi-notable threats should probably be consolidated into one article about arrests made in connection with threats against the President and his family. Mandsford (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above seems to be wanting Merge, not delete. The assassin also travelled from Boston to Hawaii, not a short distance.JB50000 (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No "plot" to speak of. WP:NOT#NEWS issues. Warrah (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is notable. If we had an article on every guy who thought of assassinating George W. Bush, we could simply double the number of articles in enwiki. I fear there will be times when also the Obamas will be more endangered. --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "An article on every guy who thought of assassinating George W. Bush"? You've missed the point: it's not about the existence of a plot, it's about the attention it received. Nothing is notable if no one cares about it, and anything is notable if enough people care about it. Everyking (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, press coverage demonstrates notability. The article needs work, but that's not a matter to be addressed within the scope of this AfD. Everyking (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... Please read WP:PERSISTENCE... for events like this we need more than just press coverage... we need to examine the duration of coverage. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Separate the AFDS. Keep Denver and Colorado. No comment yet on Hawaii - I've not read the Hawaii one yet, and I don't have time to look into it yet because I'm about to go off for a few days for the holidays. I'll check it out when I get back and vote accordingly. However, I am the primary author of the Denver and Colorado ones, and I take exception to the fact that they have been lumped in with the Hawaii article. Both of those are well-written and well-sourced with sufficient secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which satisfies the general notability guidelines. However, because they've been lumped together with an article that may not yet satisfy those guidelines, they are going to be getting delete votes that, in all likelihood, should only apply to the Hawaii article. Furthermore, both the Denver and Colorado articles have already been thoroughly vetted, and 'both are good articles (see Talk:2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver/GA1 and Talk:2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee/GA1). In fact, the Denver one is under consideration for featured article, and has already been the subject of a pointy deletion attempt, for which the result was keep. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but lumping these three articles together is simply unfair... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did that mean "Denver and Tennessee?" — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumping the article is very fair because they are the same subject matter. The Hawaii article is so new so it hasn't had the chance to be improved but deletion criteria is suppose to ignore the quality of writing. All 3 are equally notable and should be all deleted or kept (I favor keep). As far as "good article" vetting, good article criteria do not include notability so if an article is well written (which the TN and Denver article are), they still could be not notable. Besides, AFD criteria do not exempt good or featured articles. Also note that anybody can declare an article to be a good article just by saying so (If someone nominated Incahuasi District article for good article, you or I could approve it instantly. This is not pointy but allowing fair treatment of all 3 articles. Otherwise, the bias against newly created articles that need additional work is unfairly too strong. In short, I favor KEEP of all 3 articles and favor equal treatment whatever it is (delete or keep) of similar articles.JB50000 (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never nominated these. Don't know who slipped them in here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Michelle Obama; the woman wanted to kill the First Lady not President. Compared with the 2008 threats to Candidate Obama, this threat to the First Lady seems pretty marginal. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator argument amounts basically to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and so make many of the delete !votes (cfr.Mandsford) or rely on the misnaming as "plot", a problem that can be solved by moving/editing, per deletion policy. WP:PERSISTENCE reminds correctly that assessing if an incident will be notable or not cannot be determined reliably just after the incident happened, therefore to be safe for now we must assume that the thing will be notable (it surely has been covered by lots of sources), unless evidence will come out of the opposite. --Cyclopia^talk 00:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. We also have WP:NOTNEWS. So which one takes precedent? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTNEWS does not apply much here: For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. -This doesn't seem at all "routine news". --Cyclopia^talk 11:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And that is most likely where we might disagree -- which is fine with me. We can disagree on the scope of WP:NOTNEWS, but I don't think I nominated this based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. After all, when you take out the section "Not the first time," the generic picture of the Obama-family, and the navbox, then the whole article, as it stands, comes close to a mere linkfarm. The way I see it (and again, we can disagree) the whole tone of the article tries to elevate the notability by trying to prove the event's being on the same scale as the other two. Quite frankly, the fact that the author "pointedly" nominated the other two articles for deletion reeks much more of WP:HELL-I-WROTE-IT-SO-DONT-NUKE-OR-ELSE than my move to question the notability. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      
      By the way, author now created Obama assassination scares by copying the exact content of the two articles and adding his Hawaii-bit. More WP:POINT. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

< NOTNEWS clearly doesn't apply here. Almost any assassination plot or planned terrorist attack is "just news" – the death of JFK could also qualify as that. The article appears to satisfy multiple events notability criteria, specifically Depth of coverage, Geographical scope and Duration of coverage. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 13:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see... I could maybe be convinced of that if the people who want to keep it could actually make it an article... and I don't think the comparison w/ JFK quite nails it here... All of the sources are what would amount to a small snippet in a newspaper (not frontpage) and are all of Dec22+23, mostly copies or rewordings of one ap-source. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - 1)I cannot read your mind, but your rationale sounds a lot like mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT:I don't think this is notable, even if there are 5 webpages reporting it. is for sure not a nomination grounded in policy or guidelines. Which is fine, but at least let's be honest.
      - 2)After all, [...] comes close to a mere linkfarm. [...] the whole tone of the article tries [...] - This means that the article has to be expanded and edited, not deleted. The fact it is a stub and that tone is not appropriate now doesn't mean it has to be deleted -this is very clear in our deletion policy: if the problems with the article can be solved by editing, they are irrelevant for deletion.
      - 3)Quite frankly, the fact that the author [...] What the author thinks or does has nothing to do with the relevance of the article itself. If the author behaviour is problematic, report it in the appropriate places (WP:AN/I, etc.) but the author behaviour being questionable has nothing to do with the article's appropriateness. Moreover, I have not seen the Obama assassination scares article, but it seems an honest merge attempt from your description -quite the contrary of a WP:POINT, it seems a reasonable action to compromise.
      - 4)if the people who want to keep it could actually make it an article - Read WP:CHANCE. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-argued, yet I still disagree, and that's fine as well. We'll see what happens. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Original author could spend his time improving or rescuing the article, rather than wasting it on pointy stuff like this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per JB50000: while the article needs a massive overhaul for tone and style, its subject appears to be inherently notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 13:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the Michelle Obama article as the threat was made against her. Also, the sources cited in the article descibe it as a "threat" and not a "plot". Shinerunner (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Threats" such as these to the President and/or First Family are commonplace and non-notable. The Secret Service deals with hundreds per year - some get minor press attention, most do not. This one seems to have been slightly newsworthy (slow news day?), but it's not encyclopedia-worthy. Peacock (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References, please? Getting arrested for trying to kill the First Family is not common. Knowing where they are staying and travelling across the ocean is definitely rare. JB50000 (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think NOTNEWS actually does apply here. If, in the course of time, this incident becomes notable - for example, if discussion of it is sustained longer than a few days' media coverage, it could be included. Liklihood is that it will be of very short-term interest. At the moment, it is simply not notable in its own right. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any evidence of a "plot"; just an inane threat in a slow news cycle. This is cursory drivel that doesn't warrant Wikipedia's coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a plot. If editors think it is notable enough to stay in WP at all, it should be a sentence in the Barak Obama article (I bet the editing consensus over there would be to remove it). Not notable enough for an article; this is just one of those random things that gets a little bit of coverage for a couple of days and then disappears. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a poor criteria? There is no sentence in the Barack Obama article about the 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver and the 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee. If there are valid reasons for delete, meeting this criteria isn't one of them. JB50000 (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The world is a big place and there will always be a deranged person who thinks about making something of themselves by assaulting a prominent figure – it ain't notable. If someone publishes a notable analysis of several such events (showing their significance), we can have an article on the analysis. Until then, we should delete these articles which are an embarrassment for an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. There isn't enough information for an article. If there were a good merge target, fine, otherwise this could be summarized with a single sentence in the Obama biography. Something like, "Obama has been the subject of several assassination threats." Will Beback talk 04:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have been taking out text. JB50000 (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE both apply here for sure. As the latter states, "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." This subject is, at least at this point, exactly that sort of incident. Sorry, TreasuryTag, but the comparison with the JFK assassination is ludicrous. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not notable. When notability is established, then it can be recreated. The article doesn't even state the facts necessary to obtain relevancy. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is not the news.Adam in MO Talk 12:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reason is actually a Keep reason. People who want delete say this is news but Adam in MO says it's not news! JB50000 (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, to be honest I think that "this" refers to Wikipedia, not the article. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with User:Cyclopia, I think Adam in MO was referring to "[Wikipedia] is not the news" as Wikipedia isn't ABC, NBC, Fox News or CNN. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been clearer this is not the news.--Adam in MO Talk 04:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new "Barack Obama assassination threats" page. I've started a tentative page in my userspace that includes the Denver and Tennessee plots (brief synopses with links to the main pages) as well as the Hawaii and other threats. I've reached out to JB50000 on this, and I'm hoping this will end some of the messiness that's been going on lately surrounding the Denver/Tennessee/Hawaii articles (multiple AFDs, non-consensus merge attempts, etc). Any input on this proposed compromise would be appreciated! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What you are suggesting is what I had in mind when I proposed such an article earlier. A general article on all attempts with those that are notable enough broken out into their own mainspace as per Denver/Tennessee (assumption that others think they are notable by themselves. I haven't read them). NtheP (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I think JB50000 was advocating for something along those same lines. It seemed to me there was a growing consensus for such a page. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 19:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new "Barack Obama assassination threats" page. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator for this AfD: Absolutely no objection. My main point for this AfD was (and still is) that the incident does not warrant a separate article per WP:N. I invite everyone to look at the proposed article in Hunter's userspace -- it's great and sums up the topic nicely. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a withdrawn nom or a merge !vote? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is still delete and move Hunter's creation into main space... if you wanna call that a merge, go ahead, it's all the same to me. :) ...or what would be the difference? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MERGE means keeping the page as a redirect (for copyright purposes), and moving the info to a new article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I endorse the merge, and kudos to Hunter Kahn. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh -- yeah, I suppose a redirect makes sense. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've gone ahead and moved Barack Obama assassination threats out of my userspace. I'll go ahead and also cast my vote that this Hawaii plot page be Redirected to the new page. Thanks all! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the new article, it looks great. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:51, 30 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 for now. With no prejudice towards recreation. henrik•talk 10:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denizen (2010 film)[edit]

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

Unremarkable film. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. A "making-of" short appears to have won an award, not this film. Note that the DoorQ reference is actually a blog. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss. I disagree with the proposal for deletion.

I appreciate your guidance on adding more references from resources.

When seeking out references to establish the notability of a film, and to provide the necessary information for a thorough article of high quality, consider some of these resources:

A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database can provide valuable information, including links to reviews, articles, and media references. A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability, however. Film and entertainment periodicals abound. Many magazines in Category:Film magazines can provide good references and indicators of notability.

I did some more research this evening and have added references from local newspaper, film and entertainment periodicals.

It is a yet undistributed film, but is notable.

Some films that don't pass the standard notability may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant. The sources for Denizen are verifiable.

The Denizen article features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person, JA Steel, and is a major part of her career.

J.A. Steel, one of the few female directors in the industry. She is a director, producer, actor, editor, fight choreographer and stunt person, in addition to writer and composer.

The article on the Denizen film was created as there enough information on the film that it would clutter up the biography page of J.A. Steel if it was mentioned there.

The short film was about the filmmaker and the making of the film Denizen, and the struggles she has had while working a hostile industry, 92% dominated by men.

If you have access to IMDB Pro, you will see Denizen (http://www.pro.imdb.com/title/tt1194424/), is in the Top 35 completed features awaiting release (http://www.pro.imdb.com/inproduction/status-completed). This is a major accomplishment by a female director.

A lot of this discussion is about Steel's achievements as a female film director. That is arguably evidence for her notability, but doesn't make the film notable per se. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional references for Denizen that I found this evening that are not included in the Wikipedia article:

http://www.parkcityfilmmusicfestival.org/screenings.html

This seems to be a minor award (silver medal in a minor music festival competition) for the impact of music in a short film: is this not also about the documentary? --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://cinemafantastique.be/Denizen.html

This basically describes Steel as a producer of low-budget movies with low distribution numbers and anticipates Denizen to be another in the same vein, for example saying that the monster is more likely to make you laugh than scream.

http://www.cinemafantastique.net/Interview-de-Tiffany-Shepis-scream.html

This is an interview where one of the actors basically just says that she can't say much about the film. Not much support for notability. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8xyn0_ja-steel-denizen-sundance-2009_shortfilms

http://www.oklahomafilm.org/uploads/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20FINALAdvisory%20Board%20Report%20-%20April%202008.pdf

This just mentions the film in passing. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than proposing deletion, I would appreciate your help in improving the article as others have done. There are a few hundred articles on upcoming films, many in 2009 and 2010, that might also benefit from your assistance.

Thanks so much.

Action grrl (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable as such: minor low-budget as-yet unreleased action movie. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and assist-Action grrl's request to improve the article is both reasonable and kind, traits rarely seen when articles are put up for AfD. I would say this show of good faith buys her some good faith in return, what say you, Wikipedians? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Chris, I agree that we are seeing ample evidence of good faith, and we should be careful not to be impolite, but the test for notability is independent of who's asserting it, and I just don't see the evidence here! --Slashme (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really appreciate all of the interest shown, and the assistance provided for improvement, both to me and the article. I have learned so much in this process. I hope that those who advocate for deletion will reflect on the references in the article about the production, and consider what this woman has overcome to bring this independent action film to completion on a micro-budget, such as "Interview with J.A. Steel". Killing Boxx. 2008-12-01. And then perhaps contemplate the industry review of the pre-release version at "B Movie Man Review of Denizen (2010)". B Movie Man. 2009-11-25. The review is by a recognized expert in the genre, who watched the film and describes the unique stunt work, far-flung locations and complex plot, notable for independent film projects. The award mentioned above from the Park City Music Festival was for the music video/trailer for the movie Denizen itself, not the short film on the behind-the-scenes, which also won an award. My speculation is that there will be future awards for the film, and additional critical acclaim, though time will tell, just as it will for the other to-be released upcoming films. Thanks for all of your help. --Action grrl (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added 10th reference for article, from Pretty Scary: For Women in Horror by Women in Horror. Action grrl (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment The references you added to the article are NOT RELIABLE, no one can check if they are telling the truth. WP:RELIABLE --MisterWiki talk contribs 03:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dailymotion video was uploaded by himself, not by a news coverage of the website itself.
There are needed third-party sources, not by the organization.
Isn't IMDB Pro can be edited by the same users and add info about they? http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?resumeaddnewname --MisterWiki talk contribs 03:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The references in the article include third-party sources such as: Pretty Scary: For Women in Horror by Women in Horror; Muskogee Phoenix newspaper; Killing Boxx web news; JobLo Movie Network News web news; FilmStew.com (a Yahoo! Entertainment contributor); B Movie Man; Human Rights Campaign; Tulsa World newspaper; and the Nevada Film Festival. All are available to the world to check.

The information listed on IMDB can be submitted by an individual or company; howerver, it is approved by administrators and is subject to peer review. It appears you are confusing the issues of adding information to the IMDB and the StarMeter I referenced. http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?prowhatisstarmeter

For films to be listed in the IMDB, they have to be published in the Hollywood Reporter or Variety magazine, or they can be approved by an IMDB administrator, if accepted into a Withoutabox sanctioned film festival. Films not meeting this criteria are removed, thus a third-party source verifies the information for the film on the IMDB.

Out of over 3 million people listed on the IMDB, this week JA Steel is ranked 2,925 on the StarMeter or in the top 99.9% of those in the entertainment business, by the 57 million people who visit IMDB each month.

J.A. Steel, and her film Denizen (2010), meet the standards of Wikipedia for reliability and notability. Assistance to improve the article is most welcome. Thank you.

Action grrl (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Action grrl, please understand, the article of that film is not notable, it is not 2010 now and the sources (probably you provided) are not reliable, sorry. --MisterWiki talk contribs 23:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: MisterWikitalk There are 10 independent references in the article. They are all available for investigation and review. They are reliable. Any person in the entertainment industry can attest to this fact. The interview with the filmmaker is on the RealTV website about the film: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=55568695&__preferredculture=en-US&__ipculture=en-US As to the release date, there are several hundred articles on upcoming films, many in 2009 and 2010, on Wikipedia. This week, Denizen is ranked 2,766 on the IMDB MovieMeter, out of over one million past, present and upcoming films in the database, placing it in the top 99.93% of all movies notable and reliable enough to make it into the industry database. You can sign up for a two-week free trial of IMDbPro and investigate it for yourself, and learn a lot about the movie business in the process. The film does indeed meet the requirements of notable, as defined by Wikipedia and articulated in my comments you lined out above. This article has been tagged by an Editor for Rescue, so this deletion debate is moot. Again, I urge you help build, rather than tear down. Thanks. Action grrl (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but MySpace is not reliable (maybe the worst source that Wikipedia could reference). --MisterWiki talk contribs 23:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a strange feeling that you are J.A. Steel. You cannot spam your works here in Wikipedia, sorry, but wait until another person write a article for 'your' film. --MisterWiki talk contribs 23:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, take a look at WP:AUTO. --MisterWiki talk contribs 23:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is unfortunate that the totality of the references continue to be ignored. The MySpace site of RealTV is a news outlet with interviews from people throughout the entertainment industry. However, it is not referenced in the article, and is again a moot point. I am aware of WP:AUTO, and it is not applicable. However, it appears WP:HA might be a more appropriate policy for discussion. Action grrl (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but the references you provided are not reliable. This is not harassment, but please take a look at WP:RS. Myspace, blogs, and other kind of sources are not reliable. If you have a source like BBC or a reliable newspaper, let me know, if not, your article will be deleted. --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Firstly I'm assuming good faith, but good faith can't overrule policy. More I can't find any reliable sources. They may become available upon release however. [46] leads me to believe this may become true. I myself am not that well acquanted with policy on this matter, but looking into it it doesn't matter if it may become notable. It must be notable now. Therefore... NativeForeigner (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Clarification: I can't find any reliable sources showing importance. NativeForeigner (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Delete for the above reasons in the comment NativeForeigner (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.:: -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable film, made by non-notable people, starring non-notable actors. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the past few weeks, I have observed several articles relating to the work of Lesbian filmmakers and Lesbian actress summarily deleted off of Wikipedia. These articles were notable to our community, and they are important to us. There appears to be an unfortunate trend of Deletionism and bias on Wikipedia. There are several reliable sources provided in the article that are standard mediums of communication and news in the movie industry and the LGBT community. The claim that they are not reliable sources appears to demonstrate a lack of this understanding for our community. I have made my case, I have welcomed collaboration, I have appealed for understanding. If an Administrator is able to place the article into my workshop, I would appreciate the assistance. Thank you. Action grrl (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the filmaker is gay or not isn't a factor that I even consider. I could care less. Not notable is not notable. I do, however, discount niche publications that cover only items that promote their cause/agenda/whatever. The reasoning you use is no different than the ones used by Pokemon fans, Star Wars fans or the followers of different religious factions. Notability is about a single "community". Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete After going through each reference and examining them one at a time it appears to me that most of the refs are not reliable sources. The truly RS does a good job of describing the movie, but I am concerned that this doesn't establish notability on its own. If more RSes can be added then I am sure I can suggest keeping the article, but for now it is a weak delete. Basket of Puppies 06:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have just done some major clean-up on the article, addresing many of the nominator's concerns. It would be prudent to allow expansion and further sourcing as film gets its 2010 theatrical release in a few weeks. Note: the film (not just the "making of short) has already screened at festivals such as Sundance. And yes, genre-specific reviews are often dismissed out-of-hand... but they are indicative of the growing attention the film is receiving. Further, the article now includes several in-depth reliable sources toward meeting WP:NF through WP:GNG, and it is reasonable to presume that more will come with general release, not less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} . I appreciate your motto, I'd rather fix the damn pipe than complain about having wet feet. - MQS And, your experience and collaboration...and time...as an Editor is so very appreciated. Action grrl (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Again you are referencing not-rs. The article will be deleted if you don't provide a RELIABLE SOURCE. Also, 2nd reference says CNN but it is iReport. --MisterWiki talk contribs 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I can only suppose with good faith that you somehow missed the header "CNN iReport" at the top of the page you dismiss. And to emulate your need for emphasis, per WP:RS, "HOW RELIABLE A SOURCE IS, AND THE BASIS FOR ITS RELIABILITY, DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT." Reasonable editors might see that even Wikipedia policy recognizes and accepts that a small-budget, independent film pending release might not receive the same press as a big-budget, highly-touted, blockbuster film full of notables. This filmaker and her film have, so far, more coverage than might be expected toward meeting WP:NF through WP:GNG for such, and it is reasonable to presume that more will come with general release, not less. Guideline allows that each might be considered for what it is... not what it is not. At the very least, incubation might well be considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Appears that you missed the "i". I-Report. Anybody can report. Not reliable. I can write that Wikipedia is the worst encyclopedia ever in iReport, and is it reliable?. No. --MisterWiki talk contribs 17:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the reasons above.--MisterWiki talk contribs 14:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One might think that even failure of reason might make it difficult to ignore the coverage [47][48][49][50], even if supported by genre-specific reviews. Thank you for again making your opinion very clear. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reviewed the links you provided. Unfortunately, the first 2 are reliable, but not too much, they appear to be a primary source, like the other ones, and the blog pages. --MisterWiki talk contribs 17:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Found with a diligent search are a number of genre-specific reviews from genre-specific reviewers that are not primary sources. User:Action grrl mentioned a few up above, but there are more. But because they do not yet have their own articles on Wikipedia (as do such as Fangoria, Bloody-Disgusting, DVD Talk, FEARnet, Film Threat, & Rue_Morgue), I hesitated to list them here... no matter that they are independent of the production and are considered within their field of expertise to be generally authoritative on the topic of horror film... because I did not wish this to devolve into a debate on how expectations for being authoritative on the subject of independent horror films for sites like FEARnet or Bloody-Disgusting and their kin, might or might not compare with New York Times or Washington Post being authoritative in other areas. Its like a comparison of Apples and Spinach... both having something to offer, but not useful in the same ways. And no... I am not speaking about blog pages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep very well referenced article. Ikip 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think that these sources are very reliable. Even in context, they are at best adequate when looking at policy. Why do you feel that it is why referenced? Thanks, NativeForeigner (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The article is premature, and the film is not-yet-notable. If and when this film receives substantial coverage I have no objection to the Wikipedia article being recreated. JBsupreme (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the article is low budget, maybe it will never be notable. --MisterWiki talk contribs 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The early sources seem adequate for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stroke the comment. Our purposes are not going to promote any kind of non-notable films. We are a encyclopedia, not a film database. --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not strike another editor's comments just because you disagree. I have undone that edit. We only strike posts that are from sockpuppets or remove ones that are outright imflammatory. Please also be careful of WP:CIVIL. The "not to promote LGBT-related films" comes off as a bit homophobic. We cover films based on verifiability through multiple reliable sources. The nature of the films is not relevant. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What are our purposes? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:48, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Point International[edit]

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

A nonnotable short-lived business. - Altenmann >t 18:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per above. --MisterWiki talk contribs 04:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – seriously. No one has stepped up with sources after two weeks, nor can I find any. — æk ^Talk 07:11, 23 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lies (Gone series)[edit]

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

Speedy declined. Written about a book that does not yet exist, has no reviews, and is written by an author that barely has a stub on wikipedia. Seems to me that the only purpose of it is to promote the (supposedly) forthcoming book. If that's not enough, go for WP:CRYSTAL. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined the speedy, but only because the criteria didn't appear to apply. When the only sources about a book are at Twitter, there's no way that it can be notable. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, Amazon appears to have heard of it [51], and the publisher has a website about it [52]. Reliable and independent sources, though, I'm not finding any. Delete (for now) per WP:CRYSTAL. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as the previous books of the series are notable. Armbrust (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, notable upcoming book. I suspect the best treatment for this series would be to merge them all into one article though. See also Gone (novel). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your sources per WP:N are...? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nyttend and Bradjamesbrown. I think the book will ultimately be found to be notable, and we'll have an article - but this one is premature. No prejudice against a properly sourced article following the book's release, provided that those sources are reliable and independent. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, lack of reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL (and no evidence of any third-party anticipation of the text) and lack of sources. --EEMIV (talk) 22:47, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jellymon (studio)[edit]

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

This page looks to me like advertising. I tried a WP:PROD, but it was removed. The company doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP Wilstrup (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Non notable. --MisterWiki talk contribs 04:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:56, 23 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. There seems enough uncertainty here to make merge an undesirable option per WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art Blakey & the Jazz Messengers (album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS can find no coverage of this album other than a remarkably brief Allmusic overview. Being that it's self-titled and over 50 years old it is difficult to search but I tried. The artist is notable but not enough for the album. J04n(talk page) 02:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A very comprehensive Art Blakey Catalog on JazzDisco doesn't list it with this name; neither does Jazz Discography. There doesn't seem to be a Birdland (record label). I'm not sure what the All Music Guide used to source their entry, but I'm not convinced. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Blakey discography references a "Session 110" which could be this album in some form, but it doesn't provide an album cover. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is Hooray for Milt Jackson John Lewis Art Blakey Kenny Dorham on the jazz label Session, Disc #110. Two cuts with Blakey's group: Kenny Dorham, Lou Donaldson, Horace Silver and Gene Ramey recorded at Birdland October 31, 1953. Session brought out a series of "Hooray For..." discs recording groups playing live. Here is #116, Blakey again. 86.40.51.139 (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an encyclopedic (truly) account of The Session Label written by © John Holley, Konrad Nowakowski, Robert L. Campbell, & Robert Pruter, 2008; I don't see this on it, though, and it's hard to know if this is the same label. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which looks like Wikipedia is missing the notable Phil Featheringill who ran that label... Edward Vielmetti (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the cover of Session Disc 110 on a Yahoo Japan auction, so it's real. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per above. --MisterWiki talk contribs 04:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite his having a highly notable band, there remains the requirement for verifiability for an album of questionable existence. Per the above, if it was not noted, it is not notable. Additionally. I searched Google News Archive for any evidence of such an album and did not find it. Its existence remains uncertain, and there is no9 evidence it was a notable album. Edison (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Art Blakey. This is a notable band, so merge the information to the relevant page. Tavix | Talk 16:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep if deleted it would be one of 5 out of 32 Blakely albums without an article. needs to be expanded though, it's 1958 for Bluenote. Pohick2 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note to Pohick2; I applaud you trying to save this article but the info that you are adding is for a different album titled The Jazz Messengers (see the 1956 album vs. the 1953 album), I nearly did the same thing before I nominated the article. J04n(talk page) 01:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep, as it was an uncontested de-prod. MKolt now 07:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montclair plaza[edit]

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

I deproded the page. The reason given was that the mall was not notable. I did a quick google, and there appears to be enough to establish notability, however the article needs work and 3rd party sources. Userfication/incubation might not be a bad idea here.Gosox5555 (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If userfying is being considered, I submit that it might be better to move this article to WP:INCUBATOR, a new project that is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see the article, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs.
I should clarify that we are only interested in articles that are otherwise certain to be deleted or userfied. We're not really interested in taking on articles that have a chance of being improved in the mainspace. Thanks for your consideration. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - It's almost a speedy as it stands, but I can vouch for the place and its notability. I think it's worth expanding. In fact, I have to head that way early next month and I can get some pictures. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was straightforward to find a local newspaper article with a 40 year history of the place; it needs to be WP:BETTER, not demolished. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --MisterWiki talk contribs 04:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It should be trivial to find any number of newspaper articles on it over the years, probably numbering in the 100s by now from at least 3 different major regional newspapers, including the LA Times. There is at least one coffee-table book on the history of the mall available. There were a number of articles on its rather famous original freeway sign (since removed) and the alternate they would put up at Christmas. There are flyers on the mall history available in the Montclair City offices. That said, the article as it stands definitely needs considerable expansion. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see any provision in Wikipedia's guidelines or policies for deleting articles about malls which are agreed to be notable. Per [53] it is quite a large mall with over 1.2 million square feet of gross leasable area. Any mall with over 800,000 sq ft of GLA is classified as a "super-regional mall." See also the former (rejected) notability proposal Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers). Edison (talk) 06:32, 23 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bozohttpd[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) 01:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another non-notable open-source freebie. Mattg82 (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, as the original author of the piece I can easily agree on deletion of this article, seeing to be honored by having the piece in the same deletion list as the famous gajim.

People want to use wikipedia for two purpose.

Purpose One is to find a serious neutral content that he can base his opinion on, thus it has to be carefully authored and checked against facts, notability too, because existence of the article is an opinion that it is of some importance. When I check the page about cancer I am with this purpose.

Purpose two is to find a quick and easy way to get the basic facts about a certain thing they heard from other channel, usually the official one. In case of commercial software, the official site do not tell you what the software is to majority of visitors, but tells the reason why you should purchase it (e.g. how different it is to have it than not to). In case of free software, the official site also fail to tell what the software is to majority of visitors, although many of them succeeded in telling what it is to a tiny group of developers similar to themselves, if anything was told. In both of the commercial and free software cases wikipedia article often serve a better 'entry to knowledge' than the original home page. With this purpose the articles are more like summary of the product manual, specification and usage, but more reliable because others who come across finding it wrong would correct them. You can call it "user's shared summarize of product's key information". When I check and write bozohttpd page I was with this purpose.

There wildly exists a lot of small stubs of both insignificant commercial and insignificant free software products, they mainly serve the purpose two, hardly managed to fool people with purpose one into thinking they are significant. So I wouldn't think the two purpose have to conflict. It is easy to argue that Purpose two is the goal of software review site but not wikipedia, however the fact people try to find it on wikipedia making them serve a good practical use.

I think it is okay to accept deletion of this article as well as other 100 stubs of not-very-widely used software, just because it served a useful purpose other than a website (wikipedia) team intend to. However it also means now I understand the purpose of wikipedia so well that I will walk away from wikipedia but to switch to other sites where my contribution is more welcome. Note this is not a criticize of wikipedia's principle. I believe most wikipedia appreciates my decision as it helps getting wikipedia high quality. I usually weights usefulness more than quality, which makes me fits other community better:) Wikipedia do not need me. I will, on the other hand, skill keep contributing to wikipedia in case of Purpose One, which happens about 5% of time when I try to contribute to wikipedia, and only in the key areas that I am proficient in, because that is the only moment I think I want to do something really good than just do something with intention "might be useful to others, why not?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 张韡武 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

张韡武 (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources for this, except for that .name site. Pcap ping 02:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in the way of substantial and reliable non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. My apologies to those who wish that Wikipedia was a directory of all software ever. It should not be that way. JBsupreme (talk) 20:22, 23 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. NW (Talk) 21:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franciska Kouwenhoven[edit]

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

Technical nomination only of AfD begin by 69.196.158.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) whose only contributions are related to this AfD. Eastmain (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't find sources for this person in a quick search. The article may be a hoax, or there may be a mistake in her name. Here is information on the current Netherlands permanent representative to the United Nations: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/bio4119.doc.htm - Eastmain (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non Notable. --MisterWiki talk contribs 04:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Cut'n paste job from Daw Penjo. --Slashme (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Commenting, leaning delete~~ Speedy Delete Here's some information on the predecisor to the current Permanent Represenitive: [54], here's a statement Mr. Majoor made in that office from 2006; [55]. So, even if the article is 100% accurate, she only was PermRep for around a year? I can find a person by this name that is a teacher [56], on Facebook, and on Classmates... but nothing connecting this name to the United Nations. Neither of the "sources" provided with the article mention her. ~~Something about this smells fishy, but we might need a Dutch-speaker to look for sources before making any final decisions.~~ Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the link Slashme provided. Speedy delete this hoax. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Thanks to Slashme for the research. This makes me feel better about doing a technical nomination on behalf of an IP editor. - Eastmain (talk) 20:30, 23 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi (dog)[edit]

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

Winner of a dog show - already mentioned at List of Best in Show winners of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show#List of previous show winners and breeds (under a previous name), and that is sufficient, as no further notability. Article appears to be started by new owner User:FindHeidi after dog went missing. Encyclopaedia, not a noticeboard. Rapido (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sadly. I hope she gets home okay. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hope that the dog will be back at home, but the article has to be deleted due to the lack of notability of the dog User:Lucifero4

Delete The subject doesn't seem notable. Dr. Loosmark 17:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Mandsford (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the doggone article, per above. JBsupreme (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was trying to find a notability guideline for dogs but couldn't find one. This doggie fails to pass the standard notability rules anyway but hopefully the poor thing was found. Mattg82 (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After searching for third party references, I can now say the page is a hoax. Or at least the westminster part is - yes a Scottish Terrier did win at Westminster in 1995, but it's name was Gaelforce Post Script, or Peggy Sue. External link here. Definitely not Heidi. Delete all the way.Miyagawa (talk) 13:13, 24 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Miranda Music[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability, consists of unreliable sources, and is written in a promotional tone. fetchcomms☛ 00:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. --MisterWiki talk contribs 04:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/delete - no credible claims of notability, which are not inherited. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO Niteshift36 (talk) 04:53, 30 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kelln[edit]

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

Non-notable head of a solar energy company, Kelln Solar; the entry for the company never made it past speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy?) Delete: Non-notable person. Mattg82 (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Take a look at these references. As for the company, these references suggest that it was "one of the first companies in the province (Saskatchewan) to offer solar energy technology more than 20 years ago." - Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Speedily deleting the company then was probably a bit hasty. Unsure about Ken himself though. Mattg82 (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the first in Saskatchewan" is a pretty weak claim to notability, Saskatchewan is one of the smallest provinces in Canada, population-wise, I doubt he has that much competition even now, never mind 20 years ago. At any rate this AfD is about the notability of an individual, not a company. Hairhorn (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable. --MisterWiki talk contribs 04:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not individually notable apart from his company; I can't find anything that would indicate otherwise. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bordering on weak delete. Notability is of the "notability by association" variety, and even that is pretty weak. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dellt. Fails to meet any relevant notability guideline for biographical articles, epically. JBsupreme (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being a company director does not on its own demonstrate much notability and certainly being "part of" a research team and erecting something does not address WP:BIO either. The Google News matches are not that significant as they seem of the semi-promotional sort rather than recognizing notability.—Ash (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DONT delete, This was my first wikipedia article, but having read the requirements of being a 'notable figure' I believe I have supplemented the references sufficiently, and will continue to fine-tune this for aesthetic and clarity reasons. Thanks Eastmain for some I missed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treesforourchildren (talk • contribs) 16:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:51, 30 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrenalina NYC[edit]

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

Article is an advert written solely by an employee of the company. marginal if any notability. would suggest if/when topic is notable that it is created by a un-biased party, not an employee β^_command 07:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a multicultural marketing and advertising agency. A publicity business using Wikipedia for publicity. References to brandweek.com and similar sites are not enough to show general notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact that a marketing company has notable clients does not establish its own notability (notability is not inherited) ... it would be different if they had won an award for that representation (or something similar). The conflict of interest is a serious issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clever, very clever. I almost thought there was something there when I saw the WSJ reference, until I realized it was just a press release that they were republishing. Everything else is garbage. JBsupreme (talk) 23:12, 23 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.