< 27 December	29 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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Street Kings (gang)[edit]

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

No references online, the one reference provided does not mention any gang of this name or any African gang at all for that matter. Suggest all the information in the article is completely fabricated

Delete unsourced, WP:OR at best, WP:HOAX at worst. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 06:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hoax indeed (but a good one. Funny. Is there some sort of Wikimuseum of hoaxes where this article could be preserved?) - Ankimai (talk) 09:39, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clinic for Paranormal Research[edit]

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

Delete this fictional location that fails the WP:GNG with a lack of multiple, independent WP:RS. WossOccurring (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DP7_(comics). No citations to third-party sources to establish notability independent from the comic series. --EEMIV (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a plausible search term, and not links to any sources outside of primary ones. Shadowjams (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Shadowjams. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Green Wing. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Hampton Hospital Trust[edit]

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

Delete this fictional location that fails the WP:GNG with a lack of multiple, independent WP:RS. WossOccurring (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge to Green Wing. It is possible to find sources for this and I have added one. I favour merger in this case pending the discovery of more good sources but, in any case, deletion is inappropriate as the title is a useful search term. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At worst merge to Green Wing. Perhaps it's a search term, but there's nothing notable about the individual article. Shadowjams (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Green Wing. Again, not enough notability/info to justify a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 17:06, 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 no consensus. Please continue merge discussion on the article talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County General Hospital (Chicago, Illinois)[edit]

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

Delete this fictional location that fails the WP:GNG with a lack of multiple, independent WP:RS. WossOccurring (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ER (TV series) The same action was taken with the fictional Seattle Grace Hospital when the same type of article was written about that setting. I don't see this needing seven days of discussion and would redirect myself with an NAC, but will let others determine it. Nate • (chatter) 01:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination seems to be part of a deletion spree being made hastily as a spinoff of another AFD. This seems improper as, by nominating numerous similar articles together, but not as a group, the action tends to overload our system. The proper deletion process is not being followed - no discussion at the article, no effort to find sources, no effort to consider alternatives to deletion. Good sources for this topic do exist and I have added one to the article but AFD is not cleanup and our volunteer good will and efforts should not be abused in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: ER was a highly notable show, the only question here is one of organization -- where do we put the relevant (though verifiable, of course) information about the hospital.--Milowent (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ER (TV series); as with the others there's no really independent notability, and the material is not long enough to warrant a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above, ER was a very notable show. The setting is one of the most important aspects of the show. Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – AFD nomination by a sock puppet of a blocked user. –MuZemike 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. fetchcomms☛ 04:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ER (TV series) - fictional hospitals don't need their own articles. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. All points considered, also noting that consensus can change. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya S (3rd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable author, and a recreation of a previously deleted article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per recreation of deleted article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article wasn't just suddenly "recreated". It has existed since March under the name Writings of D.M. Murdock (a name suggested by Ism schism, actually). Until a couple of days ago, it existed at that name with no one questioning the subject's notability, until User:Rpsugar decided it was misnamed and started moving it around, eventually to ACHARYA S, which I fixed to the correct capitalization of Acharya S, as I explained at Talk:Acharya S#Move mess. Also, the article has changed a bit from the version that was AFDed in July 2008. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is a notable fringe theorist. I'm indifferent to the name under which it lives, but RL0919 is right--this content has existed under another name for quite some time without challenge. Why not just move it back if desired? Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is still about Acharya S and her writings. As the article stands, it is non-notable, and should be deleted. Userspace is the proper place for works in progress - ones that do not meet notability requirements. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the deletion is questioned, then Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 28 is the proper route. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is a notable and very popular underground author dealing in facts controversial only to the fringe hijackers of the page. I haven't been here since before 2008 at the least and I was here nearly at the beginning of it's construction, but this page is still being tinkered with in everyway to mess it up by those who disagree with her position. I returned the name back to Acharya S (mistakenly using caps for which I am thankful that was corrected). I also reverted to a position, I did not realise was under a deletion nomination, but I felt was closest to a fair representation. Apparently, others can't just be satisfied with that. Skull (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user has been indefinitely banned for making legal threats regarding the article up for deletion. --Ari (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, perhaps, but rename preferrably, and redirect. The author is not sufficiently notable to have a separate entry for her nom de plume. Put the article at her real name, and redirect this name to that article. WP has plenty of small-time crackpot authors, so I see no need to delete, but in this case, the author is sufficiently irrelevant to literature to warrant separate articles on the level of Mark Twain vs. Samuel Clemens, and per what I understand to be the spirit of WP:NAME, I believe the article should be at the author's given name, rather than at her penname, which, to repeat myself, should redirect to an appropriately-named article addressed at the author's given name. Regards, Tomer ^talk 09:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm... it appears my statement was premature. I wish we had separate articles for Samuel Clemens the person from Mark Twain the author, but it appears WP is yet deficient, unfortunately, in that regard. That notwithstanding, I still think this pseudonym should redirect to the author's real name, since neither is well-known outside conspiratorial [+advocacy] circles. Opinion unchanged. Tomer ^talk 09:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed in WP:COMMONNAME, we normally follow the most common usage in sources for deciding the appropriate article naming when a subject is discussed under multiple names. For many authors this means the article is under their pen name (Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, George Eliot, etc.). Regardless, the naming of an article is something of a minor side note compared to whether it is deleted or not. We don't typically delete articles just because of disputes over how to name them. --RL0919 (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ORLY?! :-p Tomer ^talk 23:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last discussion ended in delete as neither the author nor the writings are notable. There is a lack of reliable sources that attribute notability to the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reference, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_10#Acharya_S. At that time it was decided that Acharya S' writings were notable though she herself was not. Essentially the problem is her books are very famous (among the conspiracy / Christ myth crowd) but little is known about her personally. :So a compromise was struck to create an article "Writings of D.M. Murdock". The nominator participated in that compromise. From the start however there is a problem in that with most writers we discuss their works under the name, i.e. if a an author's books are notable they are seen as notable. To pick an extreme example we have an article on Anne Desclos, who is only notable because of her books. Moreover Story of O was published under the name Pauline Réage, and the author was unknown for decades. Had she not come forward decades later Desclos would not have been notable, but because she did (credibly) she is considered notable.

In the case of Murdock / Acharya S, her books are obviously notable. Christ Conspiracy has an Amazon sales rank of 18,883 11 years after it was published and Acharya S generates just under 1 million Google hits. The first 1/3rd of Zeitgeist, the Movie is based on her work... Whenever the topic of astro-theology is mentioned her name is used interchangeably with the entire theory, meaning that both critics and friends alike agree she is RS in this field (regardless of what they think of the field). I can keep going with dozens more examples why her books are notable. As far as I know she is the most influential and read conspiracy theorists in the United States on the left. Quite simply we must have an article on her, and if I had more time I'd improve the one we do have updating it with the (rather substantial) information for the last five years. Given that her latest books like Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection and The Gospel According to Acharya S are being published under her real name I think the article should be renamed to D.M. Murdock and kept. The move without having a consensus was perhaps mistaken, but deletion is not a remotely reasonable solution on how to handle this author / article. jbolden1517 ^Talk 14:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though she's fringy and restricted to a cult following, she has been discussed at length in a number of reliable sources--this in itself establishes notability. ~~Since Acharya S appears to be the name under which she is most commonly discussed, D.M. Murdock should be merged and redirected here.~~ Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I made my above comment without realizing that no separate D.M. Murdock page existed. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author is well known in her genre, and numerous popular books reference her work. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author is notable, has been discussed in reliable sources, and is popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 18:23, December 29, 2009
Delete. Whatever the interest in including the theories in WP, which can be done under suitable topics, this page is effectively a recreation of the old page, for which there was a deletion discussion and decision to delete. I spent much time as an admin trying to enforce BLP policy on that page, and eventually the business led to an Arbitration case. The recreation of the deleted page invites a re-run of the same business. I doubt that there are actually reliable sources to establish biographical facts to current standards on verifiability: the sources cited look familiar and I would argue that as we now look at things, they are inadequate. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So would you favor excising the bio info and moving the article back to a "Writings of..." format, as it had existed since the prior AfD? There are really two issues here--1) Are her works covered enough to be notable? 2) Is she herself covered enough to be a BLP? I think the evidence for the former is quite a bit stronger than the latter. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The current page and history, going back to 2005, needs to be deleted. A title like Writings of X is not adequate, in my view. If the idea is to discuss a central topic T in those writings, such a title means you can only add what X writes about T. So it is really a POV fork in disguise, of the potential article on topic T, which is what should be there; certainly in this instance that is exactly what it would be, since what Acharya S argues has roots in some quite old "freethinkers". Charles Matthews (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - When that was done with substantial parts of this content (merging them into Christ myth theory, IIRC) they were rejected as placing UNDUE emphasis. Jclemens (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is not an argument that this article should be kept, is it? It is an argument that whoever did that merge was clumsy about it. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and at the current name. While I appreciate the circumstances that led to it, the "Writings of" compromise was never a good solution. It is not uncommon for someone to be notable for their intellectual products but for there to be relatively little personal biographical information in the article. This is true of subjects from ancient times (e.g., Alexander of Aphrodisias) to the present day (e.g., William F. Vallicella, recently an overwhelming "keep" at AFD). The articles for these subjects are routinely named for the individuals, even though the content is mostly about their writings/ideas and the response to them, and the sources for their notability are usually focused on their works and not the person. There appears to be enough commentary about her ideas in independent reliable sources to qualify. As one might expect for a fringe author, the materials tend to be polarized and sometimes dismissive, but the point at AFD is only to establish that sources discuss her, not that her theories are widely accepted. I've recently added commentary about her ideas from three books, including one by a respected religious scholar. I count at least six reliable sources for commentary on her ideas where the authors of the source material are themselves notable. So while she isn't the most notable person on the planet, there is enough for an article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is this article different than the one that was deleted - per the last Afd? The article still lacks reliable sources that attribute notability to the person. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the difference between the present article and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination)? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As of the latest revision, the diff from the time of the last delete comment in the prior AFD looks like this. Since the diff is a bit hard to read, let me summarize the key point: Independent reliable sources cited in the old version: one. Independent reliable sources cited in the new version: about a dozen (there are more third-party citations than that, but I'm allowing that a few may be considered non-reliable). Surely that is a relevant change? --RL0919 (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What/where are these "dozen?" Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is silly. If you have challenges to specific sources, then go ahead and challenge them, don't just assert deletion without giving your reasons. Unless you're asserting that all the sources are unreliable, in which case, you need to re-read WP:RS. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've just removed personal information that was in flagrant violation of WP:RS. Asserting there are reliable third-party sources is not the same as checking that policy is being followed. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the nominator has been removing content from the article while the discussion is ongoing. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Note that OR and violations have been removed - per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem with that is that editing to remove OR or subtle BLP violations presume the article will be kept in the reduced form. You're arguing that the entire article should be deleted. Thus, removing content is a conflict of interest--pick which one you want to do: improve the content by editing, or delete the article. Furthermore, calling the material you removed a BLP violation is problematic: what, exactly, about the entire sourced paragraph you removed was so egregious that it couldn't have either stayed put through the rest of the AfD, or been improved by you based on the other references clearly available? AfD is about improving Wikipedia, not "winning"--or at least, it should be. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's see. The AfD notice hidden comment: "End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point". Must mean something. AfD discussions are supposed to be about the topic, really. Not the current state of the article. I have no idea why you are introducing theories allowing you to attack the nominator in this way. Tell you what, it would be more constructive if you also attempted to improve the article, rather than assuming bad faith in someone else's efforts to do that. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No one's attacking anyone. If anything, the fact that the nominator is aggressively removing information from the article, citing BLP for things which only marginally fit those criteria is a multi-front attack on the article. It's certainly his right to do so, just as it's well within my rights to point that out. Actions that demonstrate such a multi-pronged all-out effort to delete an article may be viewed dimly by other !voters, hence the relevance of this discussion. Really, the most productive AfD discussions are the ones where the nominator takes a more hands-off approach and lets the article stand or fall on its merits, in my experience. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You continue to personalise the discussion, while resisting the application of WP:BLP. Please note once more that AfD relates primarily to whether the topic is worth an article, not your theories about who is "attacking" it or "supporting" it. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that per BLP - "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." In any BLP, such material is removed per policy. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it is worth, I do not think anyone should give Ism schism a hard time for the edits to the article. I think this AFD was unnecessary and I've already registered my "keep", but challenging specific material and asking for better sources is part of the natural improvement process for an article. That doesn't mean the material Ism removes/challenges won't end up back in the article, but at least if it comes back there will be better sources or a fuller discussion of why the original sources were adequate or not. --RL0919 (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Within her area of activity there is quite a bit of comment floating around so writing an article is doable.©Geni 01:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique". Moonraker2 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 0[edit]

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

Seems to fail notability guidelines. Aside from being a fictional day that is featured in Microsoft Excel, nothing else can be really be said about it. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see that being mentioned in a spreadsheet program has any encyclopaedic merit in terms of WP:RS Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced in Doomsday rule, which explains it much better; March 0 is the last day of February, whether or not February has a leap year. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Edward Vielmetti. If it is already explained elsewhere, and it isn't notable, why do we need an article on it? (There is no content to merge.) — æk ^Talk 05:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to February 29 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)— 76.66.197.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment "March 0" refers to the last day in February, whether it is the 28th or 29th. Ergo the proposed redirect is not appropriate. — æk ^Talk 06:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be a dab page... but I think more people will expect it to be Feb 29. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had no difficulty finding a source which I have added to the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is used in the Astronomical Almanac and I have edited the article accordingly. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I would hope that more sources could be added over time. We shall see. JBsupreme (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources added to the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep It has multiple uses and sources. dude1818 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automaton Biographies[edit]

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

I declined a speedy deletion request as spam, but feel that this article is worthy of community consensus on its remaining here. The problem with it is that it is very badly written in a rambling style and has been apparently abandoned by its creator. The book has an ISBN but many books have ISBNs. That is nothing to do with notability, that is simply the purchase of an ISBN. I'm on the fence here, so would like to nominate the article in a neutral manner. I'm not into poetry so am not the right person to improve the article. Once improved we may be able to see the wood from the trees Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- looks like WP:NOT#ESSAY. WP:OR and/or WP:GNG/WP:RS. --EEMIV (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No news Ghits, only 2 scholar Ghits; even if kept eventually, it needs so much work that we need to start over. Bearian (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment that it needs work, substantial work, has never been in dispute. And that it needs this work is absolutely not a reason to delete the article. I was clear in my nomination that the standard of the article is very poor at present. But we must discuss whether the topic is notable and verifiable, not that it is badly written. There is no problem with rewriting the totality of the article now, today (I would if I had the skill to do it), pending the discussion on whether it should remain here. This happens often during AfDs that are on badly drafted articles. If the consensus is read as keep then a rewrite is essential anyway. Why not strip out the dross and leave a well sculpted stub? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think this book meets the WP:BK notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect There is a chance that the book might become notable, for she is notable as a novelist--there's even been an academic thesis written about her novels. But she is not yet notable as a poet. But as one of the works of a notable author a redirect is appropriate. Even if it did become notable , the material here would not be encyclopedic . We have no settled policy whether to remove enthusiastic non-encyclopedic material like this from the history by deleting it before making the redirect--I could go either way on that. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabi Hernandez[edit]

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

newly created soap opera character, no notability. Rm994 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of incorrect information, such as who created the character, and spoilers and speculation, which is against policy. Suggest possibly merging it with Minor characters of Days of our Lives Rm994 (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Minor_characters_of_Days_of_our_Lives#Gabi_Hernandez. Oppose merge; subject is sufficiently covered at that list, and none of the content in this article -- unsourced, in-universe -- is worth keeping, anyway (or is duplicative of what's at the character list). This probably could have just been redirected in the first place. --EEMIV (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sans merge as above. Article was created by User:Gabi Hernandez whose user page asserts to *being* the fictional character. Right. Jack Merridew 07:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment; no longer asserted ;) Jack Merridew 19:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minor_characters_of_Days_of_our_Lives#Gabi_Hernandez. Deletion seems a little extreme here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no problem with redirect after deletion. Since there is no sourced content, it's all definitionally original research and unreliable. In universe nature makes it particularly worthless.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grip (software)[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) 23:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[1] [2] [3] [4] enough? Pcap ping 23:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Joe Chill (talk) 01:00, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Andrés Negroni[edit]

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

This man had a nice military career, had some usual medals, but, with all due respect, he's not notable. The article was commissioned by the subject himself to a wonderful article-writer (and thus, it's a well-written article). It appears that no reliable source cites this man more than en passant. The main references used are self-published webpages from tripod or angelfire. Damiens.rf 22:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. author of ISBN 84-7844-138-7 on the military history of Puerto Rico, which is in turn referenced by several English language works. It's well written and well sourced, and Wikipedia is better for having well written articles. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep- Why am I not surprised? Does this have to do with what is going on [here?]. I was not commissioned by anyone, my main subject of interest is the military history of Puerto Rico. Negroni is a noted historian and the author of "Historia Militar de Puerto Rico" (A Military History of Puerto Rico (the book)), which was commissioned by Spain's Fifth Centennial Commission and the author of countless books, seee: Books He was also the Chief of Liaison for the Joint United States Military Group in Spain and the Spanish Government presented Negroni with its highest Air Force peacetime award, the Aeronautical Merit Cross and the first Puerto Rican graduate of the United States Air Force Academy. By the way, I fixed your "find sources" to how it should be. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with Tony and Edward. His book is an essential reading about the military history of Puerto Rico. The book is listed in the New York Library's research page about The Spanish American War 1.--Jmundo (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article has not been properly tagged as having been nominated for deletion. —SlamDiego_←T 08:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since this article still wasn't properly tagged to-day, I have tagged it. A closer should note that the clock didn't begin ticking until now. We don't even know yet whether it would be fair to invoke WP:SNOW, as the comments may not be representative. —SlamDiego_←T 20:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep-Having been the first Puerto Rican at the Academy (where PR is underrepresented since admissions are partially based on the size of its congressional delegation) alone, makes him notable. His subsequent scholarship makes that notability unquestionable. His awards, especially from a foreign government, make his notability clearly recognizable.Pr4ever (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The comments above say it all. --Kumioko (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awarded one of a foreign government's highest awards and author of a book that is trusted and respected enough to be referenced by peers in that area of study. Along with points brought up above, notability established. Calmer Waters 10:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment" - All relevant information in the article is sourced to three personal self-published websites, the first belonging to the subject himself, the second to the subject's cousing, and the third is a user-submission based biography collector. --Damiens.rf 14:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources not sufficient to establish notability. Most of the references used to cite the article appear to be personal websites. If Mr Negroni has written a notable book this doesn't automatically translate into him being notable. Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure about this one, to be honest. I can see both sides of the argument. I agree with Damiens about the sourcing. I don't believe that some of the sources would be considered reliable as they could be considered to have a conflict of interest due to the proximity of the authors to the subject. (Please see Wikipedia:RS#Questionable sources.) However, from what I can see the subject appears to be "recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing". This quote is direct from WP:MILMOS#PEOPLE, which would therefore seem to indicate that the subject fits the general criteria of inclusion set by concensus in the project. Additionally some of the military achievements seem like they could be notable, i.e. first Puerto Rican graduate of US Air Force Academy, and there are a number of decorations, which although they don't confer notability within the project by themselves such as the Medal of Honor, when held together with other achievements they might lead to improving the subject's notability. Would it be possible, perhaps, for the author to provide a few more citations to third party sources? This might help ease the concerns that people might have about the sourcing and then notability would be unquestionable. (For instance a quote from somewhere that cites that Negroni's book is considered to be a definitive account that is essential to understanding the topic.) Also other sourcing for the biographical information as this could be a WP:BLP concern. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Standard cleanup/sourcing improvement issues, no reason shown for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the first Puerto Rican graduate of the USAF Academy makes him notable on its own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close - To be commissioned by the government to write the "Military History of Puerto Rico" is a notable feat in itself. To the Closing Administrator, this nomination seems to me to have been a bad faith nomination from the very beginning. It was in tone with the ongoing "stalking" of the "Marine" on behave of the nominator. The nominator in question was condemned for his actions and "blocked" from editing, see evidence. The nominator failed to even follow proper procedure which is a standard requirement. 1. He did not notify the creator of the article that it was nominated for deletion, 2. He did not "tag" the article that it was nominated for deletion. This may be acceptable from an inexperienced editor, but not from the nominator who is very experienced with the deletion process and therefore creates an air of suspicion as if this nomination is simply in tone with the agenda against "Marine". Antonio "The Truth" Martin
- Comment: Unless you are likewise going to claim that anyone who has expressed support for proposed deletion is also acting in bad faith, this nomination needs to be treated a legitimate. It may be that, in a day or so, we see that it can be closed as per WP:SNOW; or it may be that five or more days are needed to seee where consensus lies. But the proposition that one editor who supports deletion acted in bad faith is insufficient basis for speedy close unless that editor were the sole supporter. —24.255.26.9 (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: And who are you, 24.255.26.9? Are you an established editor who doesn't dare sign his/her name to the comment, or truly a wikipedia reader who has never made a contribution to any article, or found a fault with anything else in wikipedia that merits a comment or an edit, but happened, by happenstance, to run into this article? Pr4ever (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: Knock it off. I simply hadn't noticed that Wikipedia had signed me out, and even if I'd never editted Wikipedia before in my life, the points made were valid, and your use of ad hominem is an exercise in irelevancy. —SlamDiego_←T 20:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Based exclusively on your unsigned comment, not knowing at the time that it was not your intent to make an anonymous comment, it was relevant to question that someone who had never made a contribution to wikipedia appear out of the blue to comment about this article. Having said that, your explanation is accepted at face value, now making irrelevant what I expressed before. Pr4ever (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it wasn't relevant. In fact, it was a hard-core violation of a significant Wikipedia behavioral guideline, as well as just poor analysis. Again: The points made in the (inadvertantly) anonymous comment were valid. If you could find flaw with them, then you should have noted as much; if you could not then you shouldn't have engaged in ad hominem. —SlamDiego_←T 03:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KTRN[edit]

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

Article lacks sources; no assertion of notability for radio show; Kevin Trudeau article does not include mention of this radio show, thereby questioning verifiability A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: Article creator keeps re-adding a list of notable guests on the show, without sources. A WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue exists with this. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In fact, the Kevin Trudeau article does have an unreferenced mention of the radio show ("Trudeau launched a self-titled Internet radio talk show www.ktradionetwork.com in February 2009. It also airs on several small radio stations consisting of mostly brokered programming.") for what that's worth. - Dravecky (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that! (self-wrasse) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:V, WP:N. Feel free to replace with an article about the radio station which actually owns this call sign. Pburka (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrn 104.5 Fm Radio. 2215 E Harding Ave Pine Bluff, AR 71601 Edward Vielmetti (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to meet the verifiability or notability thresholds. If this article is kept, it should be moved to the expanded name of the program to make way for the Arkansas radio station that is licensed as KTRN. If this wasn't at AfD, I'd have moved it and replaced it already. - Dravecky (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4, rewrite about actual radio station Ahh, nice try to the article creator who has tried to get around the successful AfD about the Kevin Trudeau Show three months ago with an article retitling and the same issues as the previously AfD'ed article. Seems like they tried to get back here with a radio show name change, but the fact that it's brokered programming on a few radio stations and the claims of guests are completely unsourced, plus the recreation of deleted content should seal this one. Nate • (chatter) 01:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've prepped the radio station article as KTRN (FM) which should be moved to the KTRN name as soon as this deletion discussion has reached a conclusion. - Dravecky (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse move of KTRN (FM) -> KTRN after this AFD resolves. If this AFD resolves to keep, I recommend renaming the current KTRN article. (But at the rate the discussion is going, the odds are against that.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the poor wiki etiquette here, but it's the first time I've felt the need to post something. I've listened to Trudeau at home in MN on KLFD, and even at my parents house over the holidays in Syracuse on WGVA I believe. I used to work in radio and don't believe these stations are brokered programming. I'm not a #1 Trudeau fan by any means, but I've listened enough on actual radio stations and from what I hear he's on more than just these two. I would put this post under "The Kevin Trudeau Show" and not KTRN as KTRN is not the call letters obviously. Here is a reference for the programming on WGVA: http://fingerlakesdailynews.com/schedules/view/3/

Here is a reference to the guests. I listened to Jesse Ventura on Trudeau's show talking about his new Conspiracy TV show. I even found the interview link: http://www.ktradionetwork.com/category/guests/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkey in MN (talk • contribs) 06:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC) — Monkey in MN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Comment I'm getting the feeling there is a big sockfarm going on here between MBirdsell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jango1077 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Monkey in MN above. There has been no other edits for them besides Trudeau-related articles, and Jango1077 responded to my template warning and reverted edits earlier in December by calling us "Wikipedia Nazis". Then suddenly MBirdsell pops up after that and creates KTRN after Jango's bridge-burning insults. They seem related to me.

As for Monkey in MN's point that Jessie Ventura was on Trudeau's show pitching his new series? He did that on every media venue he could get on last month or this month. There's nothing special about that at all. And I think KLFD was made up; the station's broadcast schedule shows your average rural station's lineup and no mention of Trudeau, while WGVA has him stuck in the Sunday afternoon dead zone where NFL football and Sunday baseball pretty much make putting anything on, even brokered programming a relief to their bottom line as the other stations cream them in the revenue department (It's also completely likely football is on during that slot and they just need something to fill it during bye weeks). It's not on the air because it's good; it's on the air because Kevin Trudeau pays them money and they put in a slot where nobody will listen. Nate • (chatter) 08:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While KLFD ~~may be~~ was a redlink ~~at the moment (and I'm off to fix that next)~~, it's a real radio station, licensed to broadcast at 1410 kHz, serving Litchfield, Minnesota, with 500 watts of AM power during the day and 45 watts at night. Not exactly WCCO but it does exist. - Dravecky (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Oh my, KLFD is that most endangered of species: a family-owned and operated single radio station providing intensely-local full service programming to its community of license. But, no, after a thorough scouring of their website I know they air Cheese Ball Corner (for dairy farmers) and Chamber Chat with Dee Schutte but there's no mention of Trudeau or his show. - Dravecky (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't saying KLFD was a false station (as I linked to the station's schedule), but that the claim of Monkey in MN that the show was airing there was false. I should double-check my edits for clarity sometimes when I'm stuck in bed dealing with being sick :-/. Nate • (chatter) 10:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't make up KLFD, it's 1410 on my radio and yes I've heard Kevin on there. Before you denounce it as a brokered station, why don't you give them a call and find out your facts before you post it. I used to work there when I was in school.[[User:Monkey_in_MN]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkey in MN (talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

That's as may be, but the program lineup provided by the station, on their website, disagrees - and, per policy, we go with the authoritative source, which is the station itself. It's possible that they broadcast the program in the past, but they do not appear to be doing so now, nor are there sources that document any past broadcast. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References Now that I'm curious, I decided to do more research and have some websites to back up the show's existence online. List of all stations the show is on: http://www.ktradionetwork.com/2009/11/16/kevins-radio-network/ Show listing on KRXA 1-4 on Sundays: http://www.krxa540.com/weekend-schedule Show listing on KFNX 9-12 on Satudays: http://www.1100kfnx.com/index.php?/program_lineup/ Monkey_in_MN ^Said~ Did 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Dravecky. The G4 case here is iffy, as the final version of The Kevin Trudeau Show is more promotional than this article. That said, I don't doubt that the program exists and is broadcast in various places, but I'm not coming up with enough reliable sources to document that. Having notable guests does not itself make the show notable, so that's out. The broadcast might be merged over to Kevin Trudeau, but I note that it's there already as a 1 line reference. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:V and WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 01:02, 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 redirect to List of the Inheritance Cycle characters#Arya Dröttningu. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arya (Inheritance Cycle)[edit]

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

Fictional character with no real-world notability or discussion in reliable sources. All encyclopedic information can easily be fitted in the relevant section of List of the Inheritance Cycle characters and other Inheritance Cycle-related articles. Una Laguna^Talk 20:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to entry at List of the Inheritance Cycle characters. No content in this article appropriate to merge. --EEMIV (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect both to List of the Inheritance Cycle characters. As UnaLaguna said, there's no real-world notability for these two characters and they haven't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The leftorium 10:58, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talat Waseem[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable academic. User:DGG has provided a list of Waseem's most cited articles, but in none of these is he first or last author, the two positions indicative of highest level of contribution. A Google Scholar search of Ghrelin appears to have sources that are cited far in excess of these. There are no independent sources establishing notability, and it also appears that the highest rung he has reached at an academic institution was postdoc. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Steamroller Assault (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete A few reasonably well cited papers, GoogleScholar gives h-index about 5, not enough to indicate WP:PROF notability on the basis of citability of his work. Nothing else in the record indicates academic notability on other grounds (no significant awards, journal editorships, etc, listed in the article). The article does not give any dates for his education and employment history, but at age 32 not likely to be far beyond the postdoc stage. Nsk92 (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if he had been the first or last author on his most-cited articles, that would not be enough to meet WP:PROF #1 in lmy eyes. --Crusio (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Starts off with some excellent GS cites but there are too few of them. Article created far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Uncertain I rather doubt he's really a notable researcher, and I interpret the highly cited publications as primarily his advisor's. The ones without Duxbury have citation counts no higher than 6., according to Scopus. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taking the article's claim that he is a leading light on Ghrelin, a Google Scholar search shows that the most-cited papers on Ghrelin have 3274, 1719, 1401, 1135, 1042, 1022, 914, 817, 774, 653, 647, 571, 570, 531, 525, 522, 506, 475, 441, 403, 376, 362, 355, 348, 337, 331, 319, 315, 312, 309, 308, 302, 299, 298, 295, 288, 287, 283, 279, 275, 275, 272, 266, 259, 253, 252, 252, 249, 247, 241, 237, 233, 230, 229, 228, 226, 223, 222, 221, 220, 219, 218, 215, 210, 206, 199, 197, 195, 193, 192, 190, 188, 182, 182, 181, 179, 179, 175, 173, 172, 171, 171, 168, 164, 163, 158, 158, 157, 156, 152, 150, 149, 148, 146, 146, 145, 144, 144, 138, 141, 139, 139, 139, 138, 138, 136, 136, 135, 134, 134, 132, 129, 127, 127, 126, 125, 124, 125, 123, 122, 122, 122, 122, 121, 120, 120, 119, 117, 116, 115, 114, 114, 114, 114, 113, 113, 112, 112, 112, 112, 112, 111, 111, 111, 111, 109, 109, 108, 107, 106, 106, 105, 105, 105, 105, 104, 101, 101, 101, 101, 100, 99, 98, 98, 98, 98, 98, 98, 98, 98, 98, 98, 97, 97, 96, 96, 96, 96, 95, 95, 95, 95, 95, 94, 94, 94, 94, 94, 93, 93, 93, 92, 92, 92, 92, 91, 91, 91, 91, 91, 91, 91, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 89, 89, 87, 87, 87, 87, 87, 87, 87, 87, 86, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 84, 84, 84, 84, 84, 84, 84, 84, 84, 84, 83, 82, 82, 82, 82, 82, 81, 81, 81, 81, 81, 81, 81, 81, 81, 79, 79, 78, 78, 78, 78, 78, 78, 78, 78, 77, 77, 77, 77, 76, 76, 76, 76, 76, 76, 76, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 74 ... citations. So Dr Waseem's most-cited paper on Ghrelin is number 277-285th on this list. I hope this clears up any uncertainty for DGG. Abductive (reasoning) 09:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation record for his work, while not at all bad, does not rise to the level of passing WP:PROF #1, and there seems to be no other plausible reason for keeping the article. And, even for an academic of this level, the amount of sourceable information we can find about him other than "he wrote these papers" seems to be very minimal. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I, at large, agree with David Eppstein’s review that Dr. Waseem is still too young and less notable to be part of an encyclopedia. However, when I see through his work at the age of 32, it appears to be significant. Most of his articles explain the role of ghrelin in gastrointestinal inflammation, stress and malignancy. I believe his work is at least worth merging with main Ghrelin Wikipage. Below is the list of his publications as first or second author in peer reviewed journals.

1. T.Waseem, M.Duxbury, H.Ito, F.Rocha, D.Lautz, E.Whang, S.Ashley, M.Robinson. Ghrelin ameliorates TNF-a induced anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic effects and promotes intestinal epithelial restitution. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Volume 199, Issue 3, Page 16. (Original Research) 2. Waseem T. Commentary: Ghrelin's role in gastrointestinal tract cancer. Surg Oncol. 2009 Mar 25. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 19324542. (Editorial) 3. Waseem T, Javaid-Ur-Rehman, Ahmad F, Azam M, Qureshi MA. Role of ghrelin axis in colorectal cancer: a novel association. Peptides. 2008 Aug;29(8):1369-76. Epub 2008 Apr 7. PMID 18471933. (Original research) 4. Waseem T, Duxbury M, Ito H, Ashley SW, Robinson MK. Exogenous ghrelin modulates release of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines in LPS-stimulated macrophages through distinct signaling pathways. Surgery. 2008 Mar;143(3):334-42. Epub 2007 Dec 27. PMID 18291254; PMC 2278045. (Original Research) 5. Duxbury MS, Waseem T, Ito H, Robinson MK, Zinner MJ, Ashley SW, Whang EE. Ghrelin promotes pancreatic adenocarcinoma cellular proliferation and invasiveness. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003 Sep 19;309(2):464-8. PMID 12951072. (Original Research)

In google search, I came to visit a website of ‘2009 International Symposium on Ghrelin’, which pretty much explains his position in the hierarchy of ghrelin research. Kojima & Kangawa are the guys who discovered ghrelin, while Dr. Waseem is the one who has mainly worked on its role in gastrointestinal tract (1,2). In that particular conference, he was neither an invited keynote speaker nor an organizer; however, he presented 3 papers given below (the maximum number of the papers from any participant).

1. Exogenous ghrelin induces intestinal mucosal hypertrophy through GH-IGF axis independent mechanism. 2. Ghrelin promotes intestinal epithelial cell proliferation through stimulation of PI3K/Akt pathway & EGFR trans-activation leading to ERK 1/2 phosphorylation. 3. Ghrelin prevents oxidative stress-induced intestinal epithelial cell apoptosis through stimulation of PI3K/Akt and inhibition of cytochrome-c mediated caspase-3 activation.

References:

1. http://www.2009ghrelintokyo.com/program/program_day2.pdf 2. http://www.2009ghrelintokyo.com/program/poster.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.142.41 (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — 115.186.142.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. The citation record though may not rise to the 'conventional' level of passing WP:PROF #1, the references point towards significant contribution of Dr. Waseem to ghrelin research. A person writing editorial in Surgical Oncology and presenting 3 papers at the highest level ghrelin forum at age of 32 must be special. Secondary source referencing however needs improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nida zulfaqar (talk • contribs) 13:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — Nida zulfaqar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I went through the main Ghrelin page, where the Dr. Waseem's research almost makes a paragraph with full fledge heading. As a biomedical researcher, I feel this work is quite interesting and forms a good basis for him to stay on Wikipedia. I also feel that his work is lot more important than many of the celebrities finding projection on Wikipedia, whose legacy would die with them. The important addition of knowledge about ghrelin by Dr. Waseem likely would live forever. For me two thumbs up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokenchill (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC) — Brokenchill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Althogh Dr. Waseem seems to be a promising researcher, the WP criteria for notability are currently not met as shown above; maybe later. Furthermore, the article lacks of NPOV at the moment. A lot of work is needed if it shall be kept. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, just kill it Well, I think I now do understand the reviewer's comments about this page. Please, just visit Maria Kanellis. She looks so beautiful on this objection-less wiki page. Does not she? I think her work is more important than Dr. Waseem's!!!!!!! is not it???!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokenchill (talk • contribs) 13:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. That is very valid point raised by Brokenchill, I should say. Dr. Waseem deserves more than such celebrities do... PERIOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nida zulfaqar (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two responses to the above remarks. 1/ OTHERCRAPEXISTS. 2/ We are not determining here whether Dr. Waseem is "deserving" or not, just whether he is notable in the Wikipedia sense. It is a (perhaps unfortunate) fact of life that entertainers like Maria frequently appear on television, are interviewed in newspapers, and are know by thousands of people, whereas deserving hard-working scientists remain obscure. We just have to live with it, though. --Crusio (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Response Well this is the basic defect. If an encyclopedia cannot entertain such a practical man, who would do it? Secondly, you do not have to necessarily live with this trend, which cannot effectively gauge the importance of a man! Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nida zulfaqar (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki to Wiktionary. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annadaana[edit]

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

non notable word/phrase WuhWuzDat 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — æk ^Talk 05:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary. — æk ^Talk 05:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Transwiki to Telugu Wiktionary, if there is one. en.Wiktionary is for the English language, isn't it, and there's no indication of this word having entered the English language. Doesn't seem to be much more notable than countless other words which...well, exist. We don't have an article for every word, obviously. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 12:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Let them discuss their own standards for inclusion. Cnilep (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lord Spongefrog. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete or TW - Agree totally with Sponge and Cnilep, it doesn't seem notable enough for a stand alone entry in Wikipedia. Jeffrey Mall (talk • Happy New Year) - 19:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. All points considered, as shown by the delete !votes, his only notability seemingly comes from his arrest. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keyontyli Goffney[edit]

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

only proper notability is for being arrested; fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Have to agree with the nominator on this one. This is a text book example of one event (No pun intended), as shown here, [5]. The only coverage of the twins are the burglaries they were charged with. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, WP:BIO1E does not exclude coverage of individuals whose notability rests on a single event; the guidelines, rather, primarily concern the question of whether both the event and the indvidual should be covered: "it may be unclear," the guidelines state, "whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Secondly, the subject of the entry satisfies the criteria for the notability of a criminal act. See Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts): "intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act." Finally, Keyontyli Goffney has made "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre" (WP:PORNBIO), namely, incest pornography.GBataille (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intense means intense; almost all crimes get a few news articles. When we say "intense" we're talking Moors Murders here. Have reliable, third party sources described his contributions to incest pornography as "unique"? Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost all crimes get a few news articles": would a break-in into a beauty shop in which $2,000 were stolen receive the well-documnted national coverage that the Goffneys received? Of course not, because normally it is not identical twins working in gay porn that commit such offenses. That is where the notability of the subject of the article resides, together with the fact that Keyontyli Goffney does have an (again, well-documented) career as a fashion model. Regarding the question of what intense means: it seems to me that repeated coverage in national news channels satisfies this criterion.GBataille (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A trivial routine burglary arrest ( & no sourced indication that the career itself is notable--main work "distributed only online"). One of the nom's good nominations. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Distributed only online isn't correct. Magazines like Clik and Next aren't online publications. If the arrest was trivial and routine, then why the national coverage? Trivial and routine crimes don't get that.91.7.116.64 (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.If the arrest was trivial and routine, then why the national coverage? Trivial and routine crimes don't get that. Porn career is also notable because of identical twin. Article should reference his brother or updated to be about both of them. --Bmoshier (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being arrested is not an indication of notability. Other than that, there's no indication of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PERP. Fails under WP:ENT, WP:PORNBIO and his arrest is just "news of the weird" that falls under WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A rough consenus of the discussion does not show favor towards deletion, but rather merging or keeping. Please continue the merge discussion on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Alliance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No assertion of real-world notability. Offers no citations to reliable third-party sources. Entirely in-universe plot summary. Spruced with puffy pieces of original research ("Both sides seemingly have...") and non-statements ("It is unknown if..."). --EEMIV (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This is fansite material; no notability outside of fan service and marketing. Unsourced and the other WP:... given. Jack Merridew 20:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge to a combination article on the locations, which should be the default for this sort of material. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to a list of something-or-others (governments, teams) of BSG thingies. Will have or has references. Major plot element. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AGF'ing that the offline refs are real. I wouldn't oppose a merge, because there are a number of such human outposts in the 1970's BSG that are absent from the 2000's reimagining. As is, this appears to meet notability, but doesn't appear to be optimally presented for Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough sourced material here that deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: largely unreferenced, in-universe. Belongs on a fan-site. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is currently referenced with 5 citations from 2 different published works, so the point of "Offers no citations to reliable third-party sources" is now moot. The idea that "No assertion of real-world notability" is spurious -- there are thousands of pages on Wikipedia that relate to fictional characters and groups. I see no calls to ask how Ewoks have real world notability, but I'm sure that few would call for that page to be deleted or merged with "non-Humans of Star Wars". "Entirely in-universe plot summary." -- well, what of it? Most if not *all* pages on Wikipedia do. For example, the Time Lord page, or Ben-Hur, Fidelio, and Hamlet. Or should all of the plays, movies, books and music be taken to some "Arts & Literature fan site"? Simply put, the Eastern Alliance was a major plot device in the original BSG's later episodes, and were alluded to (the nuked Earth) in the reimaging. Remove it, and we may as well delete/merge the Imperial stormtrooper page too. Markvs88 (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is in-universe material which is best suited for a fansite or Wikia / Wikicities or whatever its called now. JBsupreme (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this out of universe material that is suitable for Wikipedia. Due to improvements, the article demonstrates real-world notability by means of citations to reliable third-party sources and is therefore unorigfinal research concerning out of universe information. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there a list of groups or governments in BSG anywhere out there? If so, I'd be happy to keep the cruft I just deleted axed and have this content merged instead, i.e. to withdraw this nomination. Not sure if that's kosher since there are other delete !votes. --EEMIV (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is always appropriate for a nominator to say that he has concluded through dicussions and edits that there are other more acceptable options than a flat delete. The whole purpose of an AFD is to discuss the qualities of an article, pro and con, and acknowleding improvements that might happen during the course of an AfD. If a nominator's opinion changes, its always proper for him to share with the others involved in the discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a lot of response but not much of an answer. Is there any such list of BSG groups or organizations to merge this to sans cruft? --EEMIV (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the number of "Keep" votes, I'd say that's a superfluous question. Markvs88 (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and allow further soucing per Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy, Cinefantastique, Volume 35, Issues 1-6, The encyclopedia of TV science fiction, Sf-Worlds, and others avaiilable online and in libraries. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and impove Look for more source material, it seems a valid topic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:58, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William "Bill" Douglass[edit]

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

Autobiographical article that I do not believe meets WP:BIO. However, I could use a second opinion, hence the AfD rather than a PROD. Singularity42 (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added the following article, also written by the same author. They are relatives involved in the same company. I would think their notability is tied into each other. Singularity42 (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Douglass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keep – With a possible Merge/redirect to Douglass Distribution. There is enough coverage for either the owner Mr. Douglass or the company, Douglass Distribution, as shown here [6], to warrant inclusion here at Wikipedia. Notability is established with 3rd party – creditable – verifiable - independent sources, which have been shown above. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per User:Shoessss. Pburka (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but don't redirect to any of the company articles, I don't believe the companies themselves are notable enough for their own articles, keep all at the persons article and have strong words with the author about COI and AUTO. SGGH ^ping! 21:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article on the company Douglass Distributing has been re-created. Nothing much offered yet in the way of sources for any of these. The presumed conflict of interest is a concern, and is bound to influence both content and tone, at least subtly, in the direction of self-promotion. If these articles are kept one hopes they will be rewritten by objective contributors with reliable sources. 99.155.206.57 (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been deleted for the third time. The author just keeps copying the "About Us" from the company's website, and keeps ignoring admin warnings about copyright issues. So at the moment, there's no article to redirect to... Singularity42 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I’ll take care of it and get a stub going later today. I’ll drop a note on the author’s page and see if I can explain the problem regarding copyright violation. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:29, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Grubbs[edit]

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

Article has multiple issues, notability is questionable and relies on some dubious sources. Looks like a cut and paste from somewhere else. Wexcan Talk 18:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sorry to say. There is no independent – 3rd party – verifiable – creditable references, which I can find, to support Mr. Grubbs achievements, as claimed in the article. If someone can point me to any reference, other than a brief obituary, would be more than happy to change my opinion. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk
Delete. Notability is marginable, and not backed up by the third-party sources required by WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 21:19, 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. Cirt (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yair Garfias[edit]

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

This article is entirely self-sourced, and the only hits I get when I do a Google news archive search are a few Spanish-language sources whose veracity I am unsure of. If he really had an important role with all the musical groups his article lists, he would probably pass criterion #6 of Wikipedia:Notability (music), but my suspicion is that some or all of this is a hoax. In particular, an anonymous editor keeps adding him to our article on The Young Veins as the bassist for that band, despite the fact that the band's own web sites list Andy Soukal in that role. And regardless of whether it is true, it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of our core policies. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I’m on the fence on this one. I was able to find several articles with regards to Mr. Garfias, as shown here [7]. Is this enough to establish notability? Just not sure. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miscopied the link; the search you link to has nothing to do with Garfias. But as I said in the nomination, it is possible to find Spanish-language stories stating that he was associated with Silverchair: see this search. The fact that there is no English language media saying the same thing about an English language musical group worries me, though, and the number of stories found by that search is small (11, compared with ~6500 for silverchair); it makes me suspicious that the newspapers have been copying hoax information from us and then we'll use them as sources for the same hoax information completing the circle. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - “…newspapers have been copying hoax information from us”. That is a bold statement to make for the coverage of a semi-notable individual. I believe in conspiracies, but are you sure that the world-wide press would manufacture articles? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with conspiracies, just laziness. But, if he is so notable, why is press coverage of him so sparse? Why has the article had a comment on its talk page since March saying that the Silverchair association is a hoax? Why is his supposed association with The Young Veins not borne out on any non-Wikipedia web sites he doesn't control himself? A hoax here, lazily copied by a few journalists, seems the simplest explanation. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have left (neutrally worded, per WP:CANVASS) pointers to this deletion discussion on the talk pages for related articles such as Talk:Silverchair, Talk:The Young Veins, and Talk:Malese Jow. I hope that the editors of those articles, being more knowledgeable than I about their subjects, can shed some light on the question of whether the claims in this article are true. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 189.216.66.130 (talk · contribs) removed the AfD notice from the Yair Garfias article. I left a warning on the user page. I believe this is the same editor that is repeatedly replacing Andy Soukal's name by Garfias in The Young Veins. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though members of two notable bands generally get an individual article, I do not think Garfias qualifies due to the conspicuous lack of reliable sources covering his membership in the Young Veins band. The information can/should be merged into the Silverchair article, of which he is undoubtedly a member, but not on the Young Veins article, which is still very much disputed. 5:40 (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In what sense is he "undoubtedly a member" of Silverchair when the band's biography page doesn't mention him and this article only calls him a "collaborator"? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An ex-member rather. One of the sources I read mentioned he'd quit Silverchair a while back. 5:40 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, fails WP:V. Additionally hoax and WP:BOLLOCKS, seems to be part of some ones extended hoax or project focused around the Overflow Crowds Band (OCB) along with Yair Garfias. For the fate of the OCB page on wikipedia see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overflow Crowds Band (was del). So far on the web I have found as part of this hoax (complied from real material from other web sources and fictional information), a couple of blogs, a YouTube Channel and the bands Myspace page (all free websites). The bands Myspace page [8] is the most telling, band members with no association to the band beyond that web page (other than Yair Garfias) and upcoming show dates that do not match venue bookings (example 10 Jan 2010, Sandstone Amphitheater, Bonner Springs, Kansas - Sandstone is closed over winter). --blue520 14:05, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birth Certificate Jeddah[edit]

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

Opinion piece; prod contested without explanation. I42 (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Frustrating, I'm sure, but not encyclopedic. Pburka (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – An Editorial Page we are not. Frustrating as it may be, Wikipedea is not a resolution medium for conflicts. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Somebody using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Wexcan Talk 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR personal essay. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. --Alan (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as G1: Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Tangurena (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - difficult to determine what this even is. At any rate, it's either nonsense, or, more likely, a soap-box/rant with some WP:OR ostensibly mixed in to boot. References are non-sense, it seems. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee Belt[edit]

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

non-notable neologism Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yep, neologism. No relevant definitions in reliable sources, that I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Based on the available sources listed above in the GScholar search, the article is wrong: JC Hudson - Journal of Cultural Geography, 1984 " has " All of these principles were embodied in the Yankee belt, stretching from southern Michigan to western Minnesota." and all other sources there and in G News archive agree. . I can find zero uses in this sense outside Wikipedia, even in google. I think the article may have been nom without a search, because this is substantially worse than just nn neologism DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a search, yes; I didn't use google scholar, it has to be said, I normally use the standard search, news and books functions. Ironholds (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there was no a priori reason to suspect that G Scholar would be particularly relevant here--though with the Googles it is somewhat unpredictable, but even the first item in GBooks has "So are some of the Yankee Belt locations of coastal Maine and rural New [England]" & the 4th has "the great Yankee belt stretching across the Northern country, through New York, Ohio, Michigan, westward, " . DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not picking those up; either it's the whole different-country-accessing-google thing or I need to fiddle with my settings. I'll see if I can loosen up how my options treat search results, since I can't do anything about the former. Ironholds (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I know what's up. In Europe, Google Books does not include snippets from in-copyright books without explicit permission. Judging by recent unfortunate developments in France, this situation may last indefinitely. Possibly the only work-around is a US proxy. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger. Ahh well, at least that explains why I couldn't see anything. Ironholds (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VIVENDI[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) 17:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Software. Redirect title to Vivendi, a notable media conglomerate with the same name. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per User:Doc Strange. No need to clog up WP:AFD -- be WP:BOLD. Pburka (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per all above. This is a software package for care management and staff organisation. = Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't remember why I created this article, which implies that whatever product it documents probably isn't notable enough to merit keeping the entry. I think I must have run across it somewhere and created the article just in case someone was looking for the software. Agateller (talk) 21:43, 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. (X! · talk) · @301 · 06:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferit Hoxha[edit]

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

No indication this meets WP:GNG. I originally tagged this as A7, but in its current state, this article will probably pass A7. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A country's permanent representative to the United Nations is normally one of its most senior diplomats. I added some references. For further details, see the UN biographical note at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/bio4103.doc.htm -- Eastmain (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. _{-- Eastmain (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep. In my opinion, all permanent representatives to the United Nations are notable. Pburka (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the wikipedia policy that backs that up? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, no. WP:DIPLOMAT is very brief, and doesn't provide many criteria for inclusion. (There's also no policy, as far as I can tell, stating that heads of state are notable.) Clearly this is an aspect of the notability guidelines which has not received much attention. The closest policy supporting inclusion is WP:POLITICIAN: Ferit Hoxha has been appointed to a major international office. Of course, he's a diplomat and not a politician, but I'm not sure that it's relevant, or that the distinction can always even be made. Pburka (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is an interview with Ferit Hoxha in Panorama about the dispute between Albania and FYROM about visa requirements/ The interview did not show up in my Google News search: http://www.panorama.com.al/index.php?id=10722 Here is a translation of the interview: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panorama.com.al%2Findex.php%3Fid%3D10722&sl=sq&tl=en This is one of the categories where references generally exist, but they may be a challenge to find. - Eastmain (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it would be highly unlikely for a UN representative not to be notable, and in any case, there are sufficient sources here to confirm notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being permanent representative.Red Hurley (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is boring, uninformative and about someone that, in truth, the vast majority of the English speaking world could care less about and will probably never care to look up. Still, he meets the notability requirements. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Textologist[edit]

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

Neologism, original research, lacks citations Halestock (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, thaqt's pretty much what I said when nominated for PROD. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Seconded. There are plenty of references to textologists online...selling "i'm a textologist" t-shirts. (Steelerdon (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete (WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:V) and redirect to text linguistics. Textology, in academic circles, is used to refer to this topic, and textology already redirects there. Pburka (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – enough independent – verifiable – creditable sources from the likes of Google Scholar as shown here [9] . Even their own web-page, as shown here [10], and enough hits on plain old Google, as shown here [11] to establish notability. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mighyt want to read a few of those ghits. Most mention textologist as someone who studies text as in written text, not sms messaging. With respect that arguement doesn't really hold a lot of weight IMHO.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – is not “…sms messaging’’ written text. Or have I missed something? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A textologist could study SMS messages, but that's not what this article describes. This article uses a made-up term to describe an SMS marketer. The scholarly articles you linked to use the term in the context of text linguistics (textology), not marketing. Pburka (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of your [3] (at least for the first several pages that I waded through), except for the one result linking to this article, are hawking t-shirts which brag about being a/loving a/envying a textologist. Other arguments, as mentioned, are also flawed. (Steelerdon (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. This proposes that A textologist is an individual that specializes in the development of Short Message Service (SMS) messaging that uses the cell phone exclusively as the delivery technology. Sounds like spam to me, in both senses. Redirect per Pburka, good catch. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a not as of yet notable neologism. JBsupreme (talk) 22:04, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim population growth[edit]

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

Procedural nom. Concern was " This is not an encyclopedia article and thus should be delated. It does not bring any new information compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_Growing_Religion." TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is different from fastest growing religion, because that discusses growth of religion but here discussion is on growth of a population. Muslim population growth has become a universally discussed issue for the wrong or right reasons. An NPOV article with data from reliable sources will fit in. No need to delete. 117.204.84.142 (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure about this particular title, but the subject is definitely notable and has been written about quite a bit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cannot understand why any reasonable person would object to this article.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Need some work and expansion, but no reasonable reason to delete. --Ari (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like a valid and notable article subject. Everyking (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of all-female bands. (X! · talk) · @302 · 06:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of all-female metal bands[edit]

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

Excessively long statistical list, per WP:NOT#STATS Halestock (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a long list, but because it's a very complete one. I think it's not that different from other all-female bands lists (example: List_of_all-female_bands). Most of the bands don't have links, but I was about to complete it creating pages for some of the bands without a wiki entry created yet. It's not a purely statistical list but a complete all-female metal bands list, the fact the most complete all-female metal band list you can find in internet, collected after years of research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaladies (talk • contribs) 16:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The edited entry (by Tnxman307) shows a list that has passed from a complete list of 440 bands to a limited of 15 with a wiki entry. Now it seems to be in line with the wiki policies. I just have to agree, but now it's an incomplete band list, as incomplete as it has 425 bands left.

Redirect/merge to List of all-female bands. Lugnuts (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Good to see someone cleaned it up by removing the non-notable ones though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If only because musical classifications are inherently hard to determine (one person's metal is another's classic rock is another's rock and roll). TNXMan 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I specified all the subgenres included in the list, but this specification was deleted. If metal is that subjective, what's the point in having a list like List of heavy metal bands? The first in this list is AC/DC. Is AC/DC heavy metal or hard rock? Everybody will agree to add AC/DC to a metal bands list. So the same for an all-female metal bands list. In fact the first band in this list is AC/DSHE, the all-female AC/DC tribute band. --Metaladies (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Supposing one did want to browse WP articles of all-female metal bands, how would one do it? The concept of "List of all-female metal bands" seems in keeping with WP:LISTPURP regarding the purpose of lists (or alternatively could be made an Index or perhaps a category, or maybe a template if there are only a small number of notable such bands) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Lists. If whether they're metal or not is in dispute, a source could be included, though if there's one in the band's article, adding it to the list also strikes me as redundant and tacky. Categorization by gender is acceptable if there's some notability to that categorization Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Special_subcategories; All female band does a fair job of observing how this is the case and serving as the "head article" for the lists. Or, I suppose genres could be added to the entries in the List of all-female bands; that might help serve more focused browsing interests. WP:NOT#STATS is about statistics and isn't relevant to this kind of list. Шизомби (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOT#STATS, is the reason proposed for deleting the list. As Шизомби said above, the list is not an statistical one. Checking one by one the five rules in WP:NOT#STATS not to be violated, this list doesn't brake any of them. So I agree with Шизомби, WP:NOT#STATS isn't relevant to this kind of list. About deleting the items without link, as done by TN: I think it shouldn't be deleted, as they are not against any WP policy. As it's written in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates: Lists can include items that are not linked (see e.g. List of compositions by Franz Schubert); or items for which there are yet no articles (red links). So there's no reason for deleting the bands without an entry in WP. Taking this in consideration, I think the original list is in line with the WP policies, and it's not a merge of List of all-female bands, as the list of all-female metal bands actually is longer than this one, and gives extra information as the genre of the band. I think the list should be kept as it was defined originally. --Metaladies (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that "Lists can include items that are not linked [...] or items for which there are yet no articles (red links)." However, in the case of Schubert compositions the argument in favor of a comprehensive list which includes unlinked material is probably WP:Inherent notability, a somewhat controversial subject. It's probably easier to find broader consensus for WP:IHN of Schubert's works than for metal bands. With WP:REDLINKs, that's done "to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable." Thus, the argument could be made to include some bands that don't have articles, but deleting ones for which N, V, RS could not be met also appears acceptable. Шизомби (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, but in cases such band lists, I think each of their items have inherent notability, as each of them have the same relevance within the list. All them make the list a complete one. Once one item is missing the list is incomplete, losing notability itself and quality as an information source. What could be more inherent notable in an all-female metal bands list than an all-female metal band? But as you said, this is a very controversial subject.--Metaladies (talk) 23:14, 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) 01:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube roleplaying[edit]

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

In my opinion, this is not a topic which is of encyclopedia importance. Of course, I could be wrong; if reliable sources discussing this can be found and the article can be expanded with verifiable information, that would be fine. I didn't find such sources with my own search, though. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You could be wrong, but you're not. This is simply a combination of an proper name used as an adjective and a gerund. It's not a topic, it's not well-written, there are no references given, and there are none that can be found. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content is essentially a three-sentence restatement of "Youtube roleplaying is roleplaying on Youtube" and I don't think the topic is either notable nor verifiable enough to expand/improve. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. Its funny (and sad) because its true. JBsupreme (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to roleplaying. Shouldn't be lost. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhhh, what? Why shouldn't it be lost? Did you notice the complete lack of sources? Hell yes this should be lost! JBsupreme (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I declined speedy deletion because the article didn't appear to meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, but requested proposed deletion instead. The article is actually worse now than it was when it was nominated for speedy deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:31, 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 Speedy delete g11, promotion for selfpublished or nonpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallen: Maya (novel)[edit]

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

I prodded this only to find out, from the creator's talk page, that it had been speedied twice already today. Book with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet notability guidelines; no evidence of publication, no coverage in reliable source. Previous versions of the article mentioned trying to create an internet buzz about the book. Clearly not what Wikipedia is for. --Beloved Freak 16:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good luck creating a hype about a book that seems to exist only on Twitter. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 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. Tone 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Clouser[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No more notable than any other contestant this season. Appears to be little more than an advertisement for his fashion stuff. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Survivor: Samoa per WP:ONEEVENT. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was more of a threat to the other contestants on the show than Natalie was and thus is probably more notable. He is an entrepreneur who founded The Monument of Our Hearts as well as being a big threat on the show. I believe he is very notable and should have an article about him. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple users" seem to consist pretty much entirely of you and two or three anonymous IP users. His notability hasn't been improved one iota. More INFORMATION has been added, but he's still just as non-notable as he ever was. He's known for one reason only and that's the show. He's no more notable than any other person on the series (he's certainly less notable than the winner of the show, and I also question rather strongly whether Natalie and Russell deserve their own pages), and in fact I don't remember him AT ALL until he got to the final five or six. Delete under WP:ONEEVENT. Lots of people are entrepreneurs, they don't get Wikipedia articles for that. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Basically a reality TV contestant with a business. Not in any way notable. WP:WAX about Natalie and Russell is not an argument. --Slashme (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but another contestant from the previous season of Survivor, James Thomas, Jr., has an article. Since he and Clouser are both known for being Survivor contestants, why isn't Thomas's article on the list for deletion? Clouser is more notable than Thomas; he owns a business, while Thomas does not. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main difference - JT won the programme, winning notability with it. Same goes for all other winners in the past and future :) (Kyleofark (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep this article. He is obviously popular with the public because he was in the top 3 for fan favorite, and many people seem to like him. He's very memorable from the last half of the show since he was one challenge away from winning the entire thing. True Survivor fans will remember him. His clothing line presents a good image, and it deserves to be recognized. Keep the article. --SMSstopper0913 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He simply isnt notable enough at all. He just happens to be a man who has a buisness, and did well on a reality show. He didnt win the show, and wasnt particularly prominent in it until the two-three episodes in it anyway. And his buisness isnt particularly notable anyway. Its not like people are likely to search wiki for an article on it. I liked Brett on Survior, but there are far far more notable than people with him with no article. Sorry (Kyleofark (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. I believe that since he was such a large threat to the outcome of the game, people are very likely to search Wikipedia for the article on him. If there is a "demand" for an article, then we should provide everyone with the opportunity to find it. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Survivor contestants have useless articles. When was the last time you looked at Kim Mullen from Palau, Misty Giles from Exile Island, or Candace Smith from Tocantins? Probably never. They went out extremely early in the game, but have articles simply because they are pageant winners. Other people that went out early in their season and still have articles--Hunter Ellis from Marquesas, Clarence Black from Africa, and Rita Verreos from Fiji, just to name a few. Brett went all the way to 4th place, was liked by the public, and posed a HUGE threat to a different outcome of the entire season. To delete this article and keep all of the aforementioned would be absolutely ridiculous. Brett deserves an article because he owns a business, he will be well remembered by fans as he is obviously popular, and he could have drastically changed the season with one win. KEEP THIS ARTICLE. --SMSstopper0913 (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rubbish. Brett was pivotal in the most important episodes of the show, watched by tens of millions and all attention was on him. True, he was in the background early on, due to the editing controls of the Survivor producers, and in remaining on the sidelines no doubt kept himself safe for two thirds of the game. However, when he became the target and was under immense pressure he equipped himself admirably winning three immunity challenges in a row and was extraordinarily close to winning the final one, the loss of which caused his downfall. There have been many testaments to his achievements on the show and his having been voted among the top three contestants, not the least of which in the Huffington Post, published December 21. Link is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-russnow/emsurvivorem-finalist-rus_b_398966.html. As to his future fame and achievements, that remains to be seen, but it should be noted that there are many, many entrants with pages on Wikipedia of questionable renown. The point should mainly be that if there is significant interest in researching a subject, Wikipedia should provide the opportunity to provide a result. Brett Clouser meets such a determining factor and a page devoted to him should be retained.Andymickey (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Andymickey (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC) comment added by Andymickey (talk • contribs) 02:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Other people have articles" is not grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. If those people don't deserve articles either, they should also be nominated for deletion. I've taken the liberty of doing that in a few cases where I thought it was warranted. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, Brett Clouser is clearly a point of public interest; he has thousands of followers on Twitter alone. Plus, that you have singled out a "by the way" point in my statement without addressing the more pertinent points considerably lessens, to my mind, the weight of your argument. You seem to have a problem with people who come to celebrity by means you don't consider significant. Would you have deleted a page on Susan Boyle several months ago, as simply a runner-up on a British Game show until she proved herself as is currently the case with her smash selling album six months later? I don't know what sort of power you hold over an article put forth on Wikipedia or whether you have any such authority, but it leads me as a professional screenwriter and journalist to wonder whether I (or others) should waste the time to do so in the future if it can be so capriciously overturned by people with odd pseudonyms.Andymickey (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Andymickey. On the contrary to Bueller 007's comment above, Wikipedia clearly states how notable Brett Clouser is. I have compiled a direct quote from Wikipedia:Notability (people) to show grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is explicitly stated that if "the person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one", they are notable. In addition, if "the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", they are recognized as having a notable characteristic. The examples that pertain to Mr. Clouser are that he has been nominated for a notable award or honor—the "Sprint Player of the Season" Award. He also "made a widely recognized contribution" that was "part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", that is, Survivor history. He was definitely "widely recognized" for the large threat he was to the other contestants and the strong game that he played, which was even acknowledged by host Jeff Probst. These are definitely grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia and prove that the article should remain. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't care how many words editors spend stating that this person is a big deal; I see no reliable sources arguing that this person matters one way or another. Untitled, perhaps you should have a look at WP:N and WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Survivor: Samoa. WP:ONEEVENT. Google search for "Brett Clouser - Survivor" finds almost nothing. Pburka (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and, as abiove, redirect to Survivor: Samoa). Although Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants) has not received universal approval, I find it a useful guideline and Mr. Clouser doesn't meet it, nor is he notable for any other reason. And, for the record, "Sprint Player of the Season" is NOT a notable award or honour; the criteria for voting don't contain anything connected with expertise. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I'm a little confused about the difference between the two sections in this discussion. By this I mean this section (where we have been asked to post) says "Relisted," but if it hadn't been listed how would we have continued to find Brett Clouser?
Keep. Brett's more notable than others that have articles. He has his own company and participated in one of the most popular reality shows to date. He almost changed the outcome of the game, and fans will remember him. He is popular with the fans, almost winning the Player of the Season Award. Keep it. Give the guy some credit. SMSstopper0913 (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, to the point and directed to Pburka's search on Google for Brett Clouser, where he/she finds "almost nothing," I don't know which version of Google he/she uses. Perhaps it's an old Beta Version or one dedicated to some South Pacific Atoll. The Google I use, i.e. google.com, has pages and pages of search results for Brett Clouser, whether Brett Clouser alone or with the hyphenated Survivor add-on.

There seems to be some fanatical dismay exercised by a few of you who keep posting these diatribes as to who is worthy of Wikipedia and who is not. Wikipedia is a search tool for information on people, subjects or history, and like the Internet should cater to providing answers for people who ask them. If you're not interested in Brett Clouser don't type in his name, but why deprive those who are curious (even if of a momentary nature) to learn a little bit more about him? How does it hurt? Is someone more notable being deprived space on Wikipedia? This engine is not the Encyclopedia Britannica or Webster's Dictionary, where it is necessary for space constraints to limit the inclusion to those people or subjects of major note.

Anyone who makes it to a top-ten show that attracts tens of millions of viewers, considering the tens of thousands who attempt to be a player in the game, has accomplished something that most have not. To have lasted until the very final show in a brave and steadfast show of will and nerves against those who wanted to vote him off is an attribute that should be admired. And only by some bad luck at the end was he voted out of the contest, which most people (including the jury) admitted he otherwise would have won. These are the things that have made him a curiosity and why there are pages of references to him on Google, not to mention the thousands who have chosen to follow him on Twitter, etc. I'm not saying that Brett Clouser will definitely be celebrated over the long haul, but for the moment a lot of people are searching his name and expect results, and that's what Wikipedia is for.Andymickey (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for Brett Clouser without Survivor (-survivor). Nearly every reference to Brett Clouser on the web is in reference to him being on Survivor: Samoa. He has no notability outside of the show. Anyone looking for info about him once this is deleted will be directed to our Survivor: Samoa article, or they can go to IMDB, or they can look him up on the official Survivor website. Wikipedia is not Google -- people can (and will) find him elsewhere. Pburka (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except, Pburka, you specifically wrote just above, "Google search for "Brett Clouser - Survivor" finds almost nothing." I didn't make it up. But to your argument and suggestion that if people type in Brett Clouser they will be directed to your article, this seems to be a campaign to get more people to read your article. If they didn't know specifically about the "name" Brett Clouser, as opposed to the "name" Survivor-Samoa there would be no linkage issue at all. Plus, if they continue to type in his name it would appear that you are in a minority who believe no one is interested in his persona. Once again, you and a couple of others have created some fantasy notion that Wikipedia belongs to only those who you find notable. You trivialize and cheapen Google, IMDB and other database sites as if it's okay for them to include Brett and other "nobodies," but not the holy Wikipedia. This is patent nonsense. If there is interest in Brett Clouser or, for that matter, your real name (I assume it's not pburka) then there should be a reference article on Wikipedia to explain whom he is. That's the service Wikipedia performs for the masses and what makes it singularly special. Simple as that. KEEP THIS ARTICLE or you open a Pandora's box of potential deletion controversies that will keep the Wikipedia Gods who control this thing a lot busier than they perhaps want to be.Andymickey (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Andymickey, please leave soapboxing and conspiracy theories about "holy Wikipedia" out of this. You could have a look at WP:RS and if, as you seem to claim somewhere in your lengthy diatribes, there is such a plethora of reliable sources that discuss the subject in-depth, you could consider adding some of them to the article or even linking to them here. So far, all you've done is talk about how much there is, but you haven't shown any proof. "Holy Wikipedia" works that way: you prove a subject's notability by giving references to reliable sources. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rarely seen so much whinging. As Drmies says, make with some evidence that he's notable for some reason outside three or four episodes of a TV show that is only approximately 20th in TV rankings. This is an encyclopedia. It may be hard for you to understand, but not every topic or person belongs in an encyclopedia. "...or you open a Pandora's box of potential deletion controversies that will keep the Wikipedia Gods who control this thing a lot busier than they perhaps want to be." Good. By now Wikipedia is so well established that one of the biggest problems is keeping unnecessary articles OUT, and there's lots of worthless crap in Wikipedia as it is. However, it seems unlikely that this deletion will spur some kind of mass attack on worthless articles, because—as most people commenting on this thread have noted—Brett Clouser is not notable, and the deletion of his article will go unnoticed by all but two or three people. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bueller, it's intriguing that your terming of "most" people is rather reaching, inasmuch as I see seven (7) people against keeping the article and three (3) voices in the pro column, neither number a vast universe of Wikipedia users. However, before you respond to what your group usually prefers to respond, (i.e. a miniscule point rather than the main argument) I'll grant you that there are more of the small in number against than those voices for keeping the article. The key question is whose argument is better? Re Drmies' comment that there were no links, I did link a Huffington Post article that lauds Brett's efforts. Here's an article and video interview in Reality TV Magazine: http://realitytvmagazine.sheknows.com/blog/2010/01/02/survivor-samoa-bretts-quirky-personality/. Googling his name produces pages and pages of Internet links. Yes, they refer to his participation on Survivor, but it was deemed important enough that scores of different websites thought to include it. I also referred to the thousands who follow him on Twitter, which you are free to verify yourself. My main question, and perhaps one of you can answer, is who ultimately decides whether or not to delete this article? If it is not any of you folks then I prefer to let my previous arguments about Brett Clouser's significant participation in a top ten (not twenty) show (depending on the Nielsen Ratings that week) watched by tens of millions of people, in which he was voted one of the top 3 favorites, speak for themselves. Can someone please tell me what the actual process is and who ultimately says yay or nay?Andymickey (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, so you got one link to an article on Huffington Post, which is a blog. The rest is all talk. You really should have a look at WP:N, and then you should ask yourself what the difference is between an encyclopedia and a gossip site. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A blog? Excuse me, but The Huffington Post is an oft-quoted news organization, contributed to and by world famous and/or experienced professionals who are cleared by Huff Post before they may publish. Plus, the site is often referenced on CNN, NBC and many major news outlets. Hardly an obscure source of "all talk," which might better describe you and like-minded colleagues here.Andymickey (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the information you're requesting will be found at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion, and you may also find the following paragraphs about WP:Deletion review to be useful. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing. Bueller says "one of the biggest problems is keeping unnecessary articles out." Can you please explain how an article you deem "unnecessary" affects the placement of future "necessary" articles? Is there a Gigabyte limit to Wikipedia, wherein articles you'd prefer to see in Wikipedia will somehow be tossed aside because of frivolous inclusions? Otherwise, why do you care so much about an article that will be seen by people who choose to see it and not by people who don't, as you say, find Brett Clouser notable? What is the rationale for these hysterical rantings? I really don't get it.Andymickey (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The information you're requesting here is found at this link. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If you want to change the definition of notability with respect to the notability of reality programme contestants, that is done in the same way that all the other guidelines with respect to notability have been created, debated and changed over the years of Wikipedia's existence. You start by proposing a guideline, such as the failed one at Wikipedia:REALITY, which begins a discussion, which may or may not lead to a change in the definition depending on the accumulated views of everyone who comments. That one failed to achieve consensus, which left us with the status quo. If you'd care to devote some time and effort to changing the guidelines, your efforts would be very welcome; you might even find sufficient support for your point of view that you'll be able to create a new guideline. But unless it takes into account Wikipedia's existing policies, such as the very basic one about notability, you're unlikely to gain any support from the Wikipedia community, just as you're learning here. You may find an examination of WP:Why was my article deleted? to be relevant, and this introductory article makes clear the principles that are being articulated above, including the assertion that notability is an absolutely crucial element of all Wikipedia articles. If you want help in learning how Wikipedia creates and assesses its guidelines, feel free to leave me a note. Best of luck with your efforts. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Referencing your comment, Accounting4Taste, I tried to write you personally by clicking on the link, but was directed to another page itself (unless you wanted me to leave a note here -- not clear on that). But in the event that you see this response here, I'm still not sure who and how many are involved in agreeing with any of us here, re the keeping or deletion of an article. I did click on the links you listed, but it is overwhelming to process the various possibilities and it would be nice to have my query answered with a simplified response. I see that on your page you are an administrator. Is it your decision alone or do you consult with others? Regarding your comment that, based upon the existing policies, I am "unlikely to gain any support from the Wikipedia, just as you're learning here," seven people (including yourself) is hardly a torrent of disapproving Wikipedia users. Whereas a case could be made that 30% of those who wish to keep the article is a significant enough minority to keep things as they are. The word "notability" is, after all, quite subjective (as we are seeing). I understand that there may be a limit (re the Wikipedia server) and you want to keep the frivolous out. But it would appear that the comments herein and the platform on which Brett Clouser participated would be enough to put this matter to rest. It's not as if we're talking about the winner of a spelling bee in an Omaha junior high school.Andymickey (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry not to have been more clear; you can leave me a note by clicking on the word "talk" in my signature. Since my response will have little or nothing to do with this discussion, I'll respond on your talk page, found at User talk:Andymickey and will watch for your response there. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Bueller 007's comment above.
"I've rarely seen so much whinging. This is an encyclopedia. It may be hard for you to understand, but not every topic or person belongs in an encyclopedia."
Yes, that is true, but Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia. It is not like Encyclopedia Britannica at all. Wikipedia is a work in progress. It is unlike any encyclopedia that ever came before it, and very likely unlike any that will come in the future. It is a collaborative project, used by the same people who contribute to it. So therefore, if the people who make Wikipedia the way it is are interested in a subject, then we should provide them a chance to find information on it. That is what Wikipedia is all about. Why would anyone want to take this away from them? Is there a limit to the number of articles that Wikipedia holds? If we've already got over 3 million, what difference will one article (that is much more deserving than some two-sentence stubs on Wikipedia) make? It will make a difference to those who search for him looking for information. Quite frankly, I see absolutely no reason for us to be arguing over this. The public is interested, so we provide them with the opportunity. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Untitled, WP is not supposed to be a catalog of every fact in the world. There are standards here, and notability is an important concept. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, "Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge". —Untitledmind72 (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not the same thing. That my hands are cold right now is in no way notable, let alone verifiable by someone besides me. Citing the rest of that sentence easily proves that point. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument has been covered off at WP:EVERYTHING; I recommend it to your attention. For better or worse, Wikipedia has chosen to restrict itself to certain categories of topics; notable ones. It's certainly within the boundaries of discussion as to whether a particular topic is notable or not, but the restriction itself is not up for discussion. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for biting the newcomers, everyone. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since your first contribution was in April, 2008, I fail to see how that comment applies in this instance. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To me, he was on a TV show, therefore falls under WP:ENT, which he fails. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied WP:NAC TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emanate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a dictionary. No CSD criteria for it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per A5. Thats the dictionary one you were looking for. I think it meets A7 as well. smithers - talk - sign! 16:32, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coffey Anderson[edit]

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

Not notable. All references are either self-published or social networking sites. This article was changed from a redirect to a full article by User:CoffeyAnderson, which suggests a conflict of interest. Coffey Anderson was a contestant on a game show (WP:BLP1E), and currently has a few sentences in Nashville_Star_(season_6)#Coffey_Anderson. I think those few sentences should suffice. SnottyWong talk 02:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence of significant notability. I agree that a few sentences in the relevant Nashville Star article season are enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this person does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO and should therefore be deleted. Smartse (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable. He is not just a singing contest participant as suggested. In fact he has independently released four separate albums, mostly written by him and enjoys great popularity for many years now. The article is also way different from the original text suggested and greatly improved. It is substantiated by many independent references as well werldwayd (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Were those albums released by a major label or one of the more important indie labels, as WP:BAND criterion #5 stipulates? — Gwalla | Talk 20:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources on gnews. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources on Google News (for instance, here) actually do suggest plenty of notability. I've pruned the article a bit. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Some notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:55, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hajji Abdul Rehmaan Kaloo[edit]

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

The page author has not demonstrated notability per WP:bio. The given references were either dead links (removed) or produced a spyware warning (with Google chrome). Google search turned up mainly WP/WM files/pages. PDCook (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any reliable secondary sources to confer notability. Angryapathy (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: I added the refrences once again. Actually the earlier refrences were wrongly spelt. Please have a look on page again. Their are three refrences now some from Valid Newspapers. So you will have to look on it again. But if the article doesnt meet Wikipedia guidelines it can be deleted. ThanksGurezi 10:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My browser still gives me a spyware warning with the first reference, and the second and third references don't seem to mention the subject of the article, unless I am missing it. Also, please do not remove the maintenance templates from the article until the issues have all been dealt with. Regards, PDCook (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by another admin. Cirt (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers[edit]

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

New journal, main claim to notability is that it is the first Italian student-edited law journal. Article is replete with exaggerated statements, some of them synthesis, for example: "According to the database of English-language law journals at Washington & Lee University,[2] Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers is the first student-edited publication venue for scholarly articles in the field of law in Italy. The other Italian journal therein listed as student-edited is, in fact, peer-reviewed." The W&L database contains two student-edited journals, one of which the author of this article dismisses on the grounds that "it is peer-reviewed". Besides being OR and synthesis, this shows a misunderstanding of what "editing" means. In addition, this database ranks Bocconi at the very bottom (together with a whole bunch of other journals with score zero). Although the article appears to be well-sourced with 13 references, with 1 exception these are to the journal itself or are irrelevant (for instance, the reference to the Erasmus Law & Economics Review's section policies, to substantiate that it is peer-reviewed). The 1 exception is claimed to show "A recognition of the innovative potential inherent in this initiative has received explicit recognition in a 2009 article appeared on the German Law Journal." When one reads that article, however, it becomes clear that Bocconi is only mentioned in passing. In all, it appears that this article has been created prematurely and does not meet the required notability standards. Hence it should be deleted. Crusio (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the reviewer seems to have missed the point (or, more likely, the writer of the page must have failed to make the point clear): the journal's main claim to notability is not really that it is the first Italian student-edited law journal. In order to see the point, however, it is necessary to know a little bit more about scholarly publishing in the field of law, which is markedly different from (some would say unrigorous in comparison to) all other technical and scientific fields. Student-edited (by which I mean journals where it is students that select what gets published and what doesn't: I can see this being misleading to a non-lawyer, but that's how student-reviewed journals are called, in contrast to peer-reviewed journals)law reviews are the norm in the most important academic scenario in the world, i.e. the US, with only a handful of journals being peer-reviewed. In Europe, instead, articles are edited and reviewed by academics in the vast majority of journals. Some German student-edited law reviews exist, but they all are venues for final publication of an article. BSLSEP, on the contrary, is a working paper series, and this makes it markedly different from all other existing journals. The 2009 article that is referenced actually speaks about a model of publication, which has in BSLSEP its first example in the legal field . As such, the journal is indeed notable, and worthy of scholarly attention. As for the other journal mentioned in the W&L database, it is not student-edited: the editorial board consists entirely of academics and professionals. Therefore, it is incorrectly listed as student-edited in that database which - however - still is the one of the most comprehensive for law reviews. Therefore, for someone who understands legal publishing, the author of the entry merely seems to make readers aware of an incorrect listing, rather than showing "a misunderstanding of what 'editing' means." Last, but not least, I think it is far fetched to try and judge a working paper series, where papers can - and often have been - republished elsewhere (and cited from the journals they were republished in) based on its impact factor. That, if anything, confirms that the previous reviewer has largely missed the point about the working paper series format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutaska (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC) — Brutaska (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I'm not going to get involved in the semenatics in the discussions above; I am going to stick to WP policy and say that there is no evidence of notability for this subject. Angryapathy (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Angryapathy. That just isn't an argument. You cannot say that there is no evidence without getting "involved in the semantics". I have seen another user has changed the entry and I find the edits, although somewhat severe,reasonable. I think the article, as has now been modified, is keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grasshopper6 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) — Grashopper6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The issue has nothing to do with the state of the article. The issue is that the topic of the article does not have notability according to Wikipedia standards. Please read WP:NOTABILITY for infformation on what consists of notability according to this site. Angryapathy (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I fail to see why the modified version of this article should be deleted, whereas the Edinburgh Student Law Review should stay, with even less evidence of notability than I have put in my article. Apparently, Crusio was fine with that one. My feeling is this review standard is not matching the Wikipedia:New pages patrol criteria. Namely, the reviewers seem to be biased against this publication, in a manner that exceeds what has been expected of other similar entries. In light of this, I call even more strongly against deletion.Grasshopper6 —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a.k.a. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Crusio. I see. This, however, does not hide that that "othercrap" was actually reviewed by you (see history), which shows that you're either biased against Bocconi, or have a particularly short memory.

@Angryapathy. I have read the notability page, and I believe that the fact that this journal is the first implementation of a model of publication which has been discussed in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (and which, by the way, also mentioned Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers explicitly) is enough evidence, as mentioned by Brutaska. How you claim that there is no evidence without wishing to get into the technicalities, however, is beyond me. It's like saying microbiology is useless because I do not wish to read any papers in the subject. And I still remain convinced that this review is not being conducted impartially. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I have received ZERO feedback on how to improve the article, and there is yet no rebuttal of the arguments put forth by Brutaska. Grasshopper6 —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. AfD is not for cleanup, though it helps. I think this journal is notable enough. Grasshopper, check your conspiracy theories at the door. Crusio, the rules for academic journals are a bit different from other subjects, as I'm sure you know. It seems to me the outfit is not commercial, it's run under the auspices of a university, it looks decent enough for me to stay. If that sounds like a very rough kind of judgment, so be it: the bottomline is that journals' notability cannot be measured in the same way, and the likelihood of articles about possibly sketchy journals on WP outnumbering equally sketchy TV show contestants is so small that I got no problem giving the benefit of the doubt as a default. That does not mean, of course, that inflated claims such as Crusio correctly identified should stay in the article. More cutting, I believe, can be done. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am indeed aware of the fact that rules for notability are a bit different than for other subjects, see WP:Notability (academic journals) (which I wrote :-) and its talk page. Although the proposed guideline got flak from both deletionists and inclusionists, it was mainly criticized for being too inclusive. Even so, this article does not meet that guideline in any way... --Crusio (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, you are applying your notability criterion in a disparate manner. I can see the policy behind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But this is not about Edinburgh Student Law Review per se, but rather about the fact that the "first Scottish student-edited journal" was fine by you, who were the reviewer of said entry just two weeks ago. Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers, despite even having been mentioned in a third-party source, i.e. the article on the German Law Journal, and therefore meeting WP:Notability (academic journals) (see historic purpose), is still not fine. While I see no conspiracy in this, as I am sure you have better things to do than conspire against this journal, I do believe you are trying too hard to make this publication fit into the categories you may have known from your work as a scientific editor, which - may I submit - might make you a little reluctant to actually see the importance of what is indeed a new formula for legal publishing, and one that has already received independent recognition. The very criteria you have written down in the notability page are not universally applicable. For example: how can you say that Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers has a low impact factor, without considering that - as a working paper series - it is physiological that it have none, because articles published there get regularly republished elsewhere, and cited from those sources (see comment by Brutaska). --Grasshopper6 (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP has no reviewers. If you feel that the Edinburgh journal does not meet the notability guidelines, you are free to propose it for deletion or take it to AfD. I'll probably vote delete, but that is not the question here at all. And what you are saying sounds like the BSLSEP is only a try-out for articles until they get published for real. As for the "historic purpose", the BLSEP just started and we'll have to wait and see whether it actually becomes historic. Just being a bright new idea does not mean that it is going to be historic. --Crusio (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a working paper series, that's what it does. I am starting to doubt that your reservations pertain more to the nature of the project than to its actual notability (it's like saying: let's remove Homeopathy, as it's all bogus and it does not work). For your information, the referenced scholarly article indeed presents the model adopted by the publication. It is not a general recollection of law reviews in Europe, if you go beyond the title and abstract, but it focuses specifically on the working paper series model which the Bocconi publication adopts. Therefore, the lack of notability which you take for granted is all to be established, and I am skeptical of your reasons, which have - to a large extent - been rebutted by Brutaska --Grasshopper6 (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your interpretation of historic is also debatable. History and purpose are two complex concepts, that lend themselves to a multitude of different interpretations. In your previous comment, it seems that you judge purpose from an established record of fulfilling what is judged - ex post - to be something's purpose. In Hegel's words, "all that is real is rational" ;P In this respect, you forego another - equally plausible - interpretation, whereby purpose is an ex ante wish for change and - as such - clashes with the need to establish some evidentiary basis, precisely because it seeks to change a status quo that does not reflect it. In this perspective, what matters is that the purpose which is advocated be grounded in a thorough analysis of the extant circumstances, so as to be deemed to provide an answer to a historic contingency. In this perspective, "making horses fly" is not a historic purpose. The first example of working paper series, however, is indeed the important implementation of a historic purpose (bringing change in the field of student-run publications), supported by the analysis of existing circumstances in the field of student-run publications that has been performed in the referenced article. By your reasoning, for example, esperanto would also call for deletion, as it has not succeeded in establishing itself as the one language spoken by everyone worldwide. --Grasshopper6 (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know if the journal is the first of his category in Italy but we have to remember that academic journal have different rules then the others.User:Lucifero4

And according to what different rules would this then be notable? --Crusio (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be an academic journal written by student of one the leading institution in economic in Europe mean that the journal is notable, because satisfies point 1 and 3 of Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) and point 2 read the article.User:Lucifero4

Sorry to be dense, but exactly how does this satisfy any of those criteria??? As far as I can see, this does not even come close to satisfying them. --Crusio (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the journal is written by one of the leading istitution is sure that is reliable and influential, the journal hasn't a significant history ( it is only 1 year old ) but is not written only for this moment, for point 2 read here [12].User:Lucifero4

Point 1, "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area": no evidence of this anywhere. Nobody claims the journal is not reliable, just that it is not notable. Point 2, "The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources": your link shows articles published by this journal, not that this journal has been cited by others frequently. Point 3, as you indeed say, a journal that just starts cannot yet be "historic". Conclusion: notability = zilch. --Crusio (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What has to be historic, according to WP:Notability (academic journals), is not the journal, but its purpose, as I have tried explaining in my last post two days ago. This, in turn, is established by the referenced scholarly article. It seems to me that your standard of interpretation of the notability criteria follows Humpty Dumpty's: `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.' :) --Grasshopper6 (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Journals featuring the writing of undergraduate or graduate students exist at many colleges and universities. For example, the Harvard Law Review is written by law students at Harvard, and is notable raised to the notable power. But this new journal is not notable in the least. It does not have any more claim of notability than the Undergraduate Research Journal of North Carolina State University. Abductive (reasoning) 10:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This grossly misunderstands the nature of the publication, which does not feature "the writing of undergraduate students". It is merely edited by students, but it has published notable and established scholars. Also, the journal is notable for its peculiar format, which has formed the object of a scholarly article. Hence, I disagree.--Grasshopper6 (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ho, so then it is a regular journal, and the student involvement has no meaning. Abductive (reasoning) 18:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that the journal is not a kind of showcase for student works, which is what you wrongly mentioned. It is edited by students, but featuring student articles is another thing than editing done by students. Not knowing the difference should suggest avoiding to cast random deletion votes.--Grasshopper6 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning above and WP:CRYSTAL, WP:EFFECT. Plus, once you remove the WP:PUFF, there's nothing left. Anything worth saving can be included in Bocconi School of Law without problem. THF (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Puffery? Read first, and then say something worth reading. [13]--Grasshopper6 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's be realistic. What we are talking about deleting is an article on a scholarly journal, published by a respected institution, which has even received scholarly attention because of its format (I subscribe to the post by Drmies). This journal is not a pornstar, nor a little-known actress or a Pokemon character. While some of you seem to hold the bar of notability in your hands and claim that this article's is at issue - with little to no knowledge of the area of European student-edited publications not being an obstacle to whatever little substianted claims of lack of notability - I think that you are doing a disservice to this encyclopedia (if I understand your way of thinking, I am by now expecting some pedantic WP: link to tell me I can't use this argument, because one of you has decided that it shouldn't be so and has written a self-referential page on it). Your stance towards a topic which none of you holds a commanding expertise in should make you think. If not, I have taken the pain to provide you with some links.[14] [15] [16][17] --Grasshopper6 (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My opinion (second entry in this debate) hadn't been counted in the AfD statistics yet. It seems that my arguments weren't given serious consideration either. This journal is fine.--Brutaska (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This journal is not comparable to the student -edited US law journals, which publish actual articles, not working papers, and publish articles by accomplished legal scholars, not students. (as is well known, that the peer-review is performed by the students rather than actual academic peers of the authors is different from all other forms of scholarship. This is a journal that publishes student papers. Journals that publish student papers in any field, have a rather difficult patt to be considered notable, either by the standards here t Wikipedia , or by scholarship in general,--though in each case, a few have made it. In answer to a few objections:

1. The "scholarly attention" it has received is just the note that something new is being tried, not that it is successful. If it is successful, then it might become notable.

2. It is not a scholarly journal. It is a journal for the publication of student papers. (there are presently a few papers by established scholars). Student papers are not normally scholarly work, unless proven otherwise

3. As for the general value of working paper series, we should devote some effort to cover the established ones in the fields they are most important. Each individual one would have to show notability in its own right, not just existence. We might start with the famous ones, such as Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers I admit to being considerably startled to our deficiencies here, and I'm glad it is called to our attention.

4. As for European student publication, we are not all that ignorant either. Again, each individual one would have to show notability in its own right, not just existence.

5. I've read carefully the article in German Law Journal. It makes an excellent case for the possible notability of such titles. It does not however, make any case at all for the notability of this particular one. We should seriously consider writing articles about the ones it considers important. This would be better done by those not associated with it.

5. As for the general value of Wikipedia's notability standard, I am not particularly known here as a deletionist & neither is Crusio. But one difference between an encyclopedia and a catalog is that the encyclopedia is selective, and non-promotional. One reason for selectivity is that it is the only way to keep out promotionalism. The level of selectivity can be and certainly is argued, but the basic idea is well established, and there is an almost complete consensus that we should continue along the current path. I hope there will be a diversity of free works like ours with different goals & limits--no matter how great Wikipedia is, I hope it will be just the beginning.

In summary, from this journal's own home page: "the hope is that this small contribution might promote a culture of scholarly openness which is a necessary prerequisite for the advancement of knowledge and the improvement of society at large." Along with others involved in free publishing--which inherently includes all Wikipedians-- I wish their hope may be realized. When it is realized, the journal will become notable. But this is not the place for publicity for even the hopes we are most sympathetic to here, until then. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "It is a journal for the publication of student papers. (there are presently a few papers by established scholars)" Why do I smell contradiction here? Either this journal publishes student articles only, or it doesn't. This is a journal of student scholarship: Estro. Not one that states this: "Of course, submissions by practitioners and academics are also more than welcome". Additionally, many - among the student articles that did appear - were successfully republished elsewhere, thereby proving their scholarly value. Also, all published articles are issued under close Faculty supervision[18]. Therefore, claiming the non scholarly nature of working papers published here is a little far fetched. Also, by judging the journal by comparison to US law reviews, you are using the wrong standard: the US and European "markets" for legal scholarly publishing are - literally - an Ocean apart. Finally, re German Law Journal article, how is mentioning this publication as the first example of student-edited legal working paper series not making a case for its notability?--Grasshopper6 (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One more thing. I'm sorry to disappoint, but all American student-edited journals, including the Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal, publish case notes and comments, which are - indeed - written by students. As a matter of fact, the latest issue of the Harvard Law Review [19] contains more student-edited pieces than it contains articles by academics. Another (missing) brick in your wall, I'm afraid. And BTW. This is also mentioned in the German Law Journal piece. Are you sure you have really read it? --Grasshopper6 (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what you are missing; there aren't any secondary sources for this journal. Really, all this detail doesn't exist as far as Wikipedia is concerned. All that is required to keep a topic is analysis in third-party sources. Abductive (reasoning) 00:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer Abductive. I have followed your advice. As mentioned in the article, the publication's former name was "Italian Legal Scholarship Unbound Working Paper Series" or "ILSU Working Paper Series". Running that search on Google, I was able to find the following:

(1) news about the journal on Diritto & Diritti, one of Italy's most renowned legal web portals [20], as well as

(2) on the website of "Il Nuovo Diritto", another Italian law journal [21]

Under "Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers", I have also found

(3) mention of the journal in an article on an online magazine of Libertà Eguale, an Italian liberal think tank, where it was mentioned alongside other promising Italian cultural initiatives, such as the European University Institute, as a sign of Italian "Cultural Renaissance" (the article title is, indeed, Rinascimento Italiano, which means Italian Renaissance)[22]

These sources have now been added to the article.

--Grasshopper6 (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is often a negative sign when someone compares their new enterprise to one of the world's finest. In this journal, almost all the articles are by students of their school, a few are by others. They say they hope to get papers from others. Whether they will succeed in getting them, is another matter. In Harvard Law Review, every principal article I have seen in the last few issues has been by a distinguished scholar--generally in the literal sense, e.g. " William L. Matheson & Robert M. Morgenthau Distinguished Professor, University of Virginia School of Law." there are additionally other material, such as case notes, by the student staff of the journal-- the difference is night and day. I say the same thing I say to other new publications--: not yet notable. I;ve read the notices linked to above: they re announcements of a new publication that they frankly call "experimental"--until the experiment succeeds, again, not yet notable. Similarly the article's supporter just above uses the word "promising" . As I see it, "promising"i s a fairly good synonym for not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bocconi has published Ugo Mattei. Call that a new kid on the block! I wasn't really comparing anything. I was just showing you that your assumption that student-edited law journals publish no student articles was blatantly wrong. Actually, it still is. Also, FYI, Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers has also published a book [23], which has been purchased by the Harvard Law Library as well [24]. I did insert this reference somewhere, but some smartypants must have removed this.--Grasshopper6 (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may very well be a notable publication someday, but it isn't yet. DGG stated it all very well. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe much of the criticism made against the notability of this journal has been rebutted by Grasshopper6, who has shown to be very knowledgeable in the field. Deleting this entry might just turn away from Wikipedia another knowledgeable user; all for the enforcement of a criterion, that of notability, whose meaning is very subjective and fuzzy.--BarryOb (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC) — BarryOb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Nolite ponere margheritas ante porcos . Well, it looks like my article is going to be shut down by the will of an expert in "mouse behavioral neurogenetics ", a microbiologist, a librarian who has demonstrated not to have such a firm grasp of student-edited law reviews and someone who thinks FOX news is impartial. I have spent valuable time researching and improving this article, as well as trying to make you think about your weakly-held ideas about the alleged lack of notability of this publication. Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited papers is notable, and I am personally and intellectually offended by the lack of real debate in this AfD, since none of my numerous observations has received a convincing reply, and all of them have been discarded as though they were coming from the last idiot in the speaker’s corner. You may think you are doing a service to this encyclopaedia, "shutting down" the work of someone who has considerable expertise in this field, i.e. European student-edited journals. I beg to differ, and I rather think you are behaving - albeit in the utmost good faith - like a storm of law-abiding fascists (NB: I'm not saying you are fascists, I am just saying you are unknowingly behaving like them), who are so good at finding cool names for their questionable practices. You are CENSORING my article, an article which has cost me work and a considerable amount of effort (and, Crusio, once you have accepted the Edinburgh Student Law Review without any criticism, you are, really, censoring my article out of whim; there is no excuse for your arbitrary, authoritarian and ultimately pathetic behavior). Once you call it notability review, however, it is all PC and cool. I never thought Wikipedia would be this, particularly as someone who strongly believes in open content. For this reason, I shall withdraw my article myself: persuading a bunch of jokers (with reference to the field the article deals with) of their ignorance is no longer worth my time and effort, nor is this website, if its philosophy is to shut down newbies after thorny, discretional and self-referential policies.

--Grasshopper6 (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sorry you feel like this. I think that if you would have taken the effort to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, that your experience might have been different. Given that you as article creator have decided to blank the page, which has subsequently been speedily deleted, I assume that this debate has become moot and can be closed. --Crusio (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon G. Segaram[edit]

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

nothing in gnews for this person [25], [26]. created by a suspect editor who has really only worked on 2 articles which lack any reliable sources. the other article being the similarly weakly sourced Suthan Sivapathasuntharam. LibStar (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this composer. Joe Chill (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Take notice of the "See also" section that more or less is linkspam. PDCook (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real claim to notability in the article. He may have worked with notable people, but isn't, himself, notable. Pburka (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suthan Sivapathasuntharam[edit]

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

Additional findsources:

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

fails WP:BIO, nothing in gnews [27] and full of unverified statements, even the article says he's unsigned. suspect this is a WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:N. No independent coverage. All the references are to user generated content (e.g. myspace, youtube). Fails WP:MUSIC. Pburka (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:MUSIC. Main claim to notability is a "hit" with the song "Tamil Girl", but as far as I can tell it didn't chart anywhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Top 20 Chart[edit]

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

This chart is not official chart in Croatia. As article says: The chart is based on public's votes only! SveroH (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete through lack of sources (being unofficial doesn't mean anything: The Big Top 40 is an unofficial chart in the United Kingdom - it's not recognised by the The Official Charts Company - yet has an article). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is chart that is played on HR1 radio. That radio station has round 440.000 listeners. Chart is based on voting. Nowhere states when it is played on radio, and nowhere says how to vote.--SveroH (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added a few Croatian references to it, and suspect there are more than me and google translate haven't yet unearthed. Sadly, the croatian wikipedia (70,000+ articles) doesn't yet have an article on it, though the phrase "HR Top 20" (show nickname) appears in a number of articles there.--Milowent (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I usualy work on Croatian Wikipedia, and i am from Croatia. This article is not about HRTOP20. Hrtop20 is different chart. We have an article hr:Hrvatske glazbene ljestvice (Croatian Music Charts) where are listed Official croatian albums chart (by HDU), croatain singles chart that lists only croatian singles (HRTOP20) and singles chart that lists only foreign singles (singles chart by Otvoreni Radio) This article chart is chart by HR1, and this is not HRtop20 that is listed in articles. For Example "Pjesma za kraj" - here is for source used hrtop20, and not this chart. --SveroH (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eeek. i'll remove those edits then. thanks!--Milowent (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References now added. Lugnuts (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what references? there is only one referenc in article and that is from this charts web site--SveroH (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the official chart for a national radio network it seems this completely avoids WP:BADCHARTS. Article has been improved and even if sourced by the network itself it's better than most of the other charts here. Nate • (chatter) 01:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it seems like nobody doesn't get point. this is not official chart in Croatia. hrtop20 is official croatian singles chart, that has even awards. It lists airplay for almost every radio station in croatia and it has archive. Main problem with HrTop20 is that it only lists croatian singles. However Croatian Top 20 Chart as it is called here list croatian and foreign singles, but chart is based on voting. No airplay, no digital nor physical sales. Maybe the best thing right now is to rename this chart to someting like HR radio chart or something better and it should be mentioned in article that this is not official chart. This is similar to Israeli Singles Chart wich is listed on WP:BADCHARTS. And it should be written an article about HrTop20. I could write it if nobody else won't do it.--SveroH (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many countries have multiple charts for radio play and record sales and this is no different. This isn't some guy in his basement, it's the national radio network of Croatia, and I'd like to think they have plenty of authority on creating a well-balanced chart and from reading this, it has user input, but not to the point where ballot stuffing can take place and mess with the metrics. If record stores and other entities use it and it's promoted in local media, it's an official chart. Nate • (chatter) 13:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bickering about which chart has what status seems unimportant as the title is general enough that we can use it to document any and all Croatian Top 20 charts. If there is confusion between them then it will be helpful to our readership to have them presented together so that their basis and differences may be well understood. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:20, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Baldwin[edit]

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only claim to notability is a nomination for an award for a group sex scene. He didn't win, and presumably, was only one of a group of nominees (unless he's the Peter Sellers of porn). Pburka (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The possibilities for joking here are almost endless, but it will be hard to top Pburka. This guy is not notable, BTW. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:PORNBIO. Warrah (talk) 16:34, 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 keep. !votes moved to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daiu_International TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daiu International[edit]

NOTEI did create a AfD, it is found below, I have no idea what DumbBOT meant by missing. This is a fork/incorrect duplicate of the AfD created by a new user (see history). Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daiu_International ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the original nominator is Noian (talk · contribs), but never created the afd page. I have asked on Noian (talk · contribs)'s talk page to provide rationale for this afd. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this information on Daiu International, LLC is very useful to users who are interested in learning about the company. This international entity is fairly new and new information will be added as the website expands. I believe the content is suitable and a wonderful beginning for an elongated article with the years to come.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Destiny3005 (talk • contribs) 2009/12/26 01:21:04
Delete. I don't see any notability per WP standards here. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unambiguous advertising: an American-based e-company with diverse cultural and linguistic services... the company incorporated a detailed forum and informative subpages... offers great linguistic tools to students of the Japanese language. The company also promotes cultural diversity and environmental sustainability..... becomes one step closer to providing the most detailed and user-friendly package.... "E-company"??? Give me a break. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:52, 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. Cirt (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tillson[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources found to verify notability. Cannot establish that the subject passes Wikipedia standards on notability. The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard. Hot Steam Valve (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. The only source I could find that seems to support Tillson's "claim to fame" is an article in his high school newspaper (page 3 of this PDF). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are way more sources than that. The Washington Post, American Conservative Magazine. He also was featured in an article in a DC area paper about young political activists. I'm trying to track it down. I'll cite it as soon as I find it. --GBVrallyCI (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think it is worth disclosing that you were the author of the article about Mark Ellmore. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, all mentions of Daniel Tillson are directly related to Ellmore, with no articles directly about him seperately. If he really was a teenager running a campaign, I'd expect to find much more info about him, especially with the Guinness Book claims and such. Unless better sources are provided about Tillson himself, I'm goign to agree with the nominator, and say delete. Angryapathy (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or very selective merge to Mark Ellmore if the Guinness claim can be substantiated. I find one article by searching Google News Archive (here, mainly about Ellmore) and nothing in LexisNexis. EALacey (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —71.75.25.147 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: To Mark Ellmore. No reason to lose properly sourced content for this young activist. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The lack of sources is the primary problem of the article, therefore delete until problems are resolved. Hot Steam Valve (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This also assumes Ellmore is notable, which I'm not convinced by. Hence delete. MikeHobday (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article stands, only one of the references even mentions Tilson, and it simply quotes him as campaign manager. It says nothing about his age or anything to make him stand out from thousands of other congressional campaign managers. Google turns up nothing of interest. If GBVrallyCI or others can find those citations I will happily change my vote. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete. Simply doesn't pass WP:N. Skip the redirect because I can see that article being in AfD very soon. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Ellmore article is in AfD now: WP:Articles for deletion/Mark Ellmore (3rd nomination) Niteshift36 (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Ellis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted due to lack of notability [28], but article was restored (despite the fact that its subject doesn't seem to have become any more notable.) Bueller 007 (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The previous AfD was a mass article nomination and several voters noted that this individual met guidelines. He's not just a former contestant on a reality television show, he went on to host numerous well established cable programs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed, the previous AFD was a mass nomination that required a an all-or-nothing approach... sadly, one of the problems with such. Kudos to the editor who restored this article, as the subject easily meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG [29]. What can be corrected through regular editing is no reason for deletion... and yes, I performed some cleanup and sourcing before commenting here. Its a keeper that improves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The article has now been sourced and significantly improved since this AFD began, turning this into THIS. Thank you for the opportunity, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the expansion and sourcing since nomination clearly shows that he meets WP:GNG. Hosted several History Channel shows, won a local Emmy award and nominated for another, plus his time on Survivor, all well referenced. J04n(talk page) 14:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now evidently sourced to pass an AfD. MURGH ^disc. 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now clearly notable and properly refed. Another great result from the WP:Article Rescue Squadron? NBeale (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snowball Keep. Per all the above. Nom following wp:before could have saved other editors' time (as could nom withdrawing nomination now).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Husky News Network[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Notability is not demonstrated. It may have minor coverage but nothing significant. Seems to be an element of vanity in the long lists of names. DanielRigal (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability,through the special as shown below on the article. Also, reference cite to East Bay Newspapers of an article that was taken off their website recently due to a new layout. Accruate information, other pages like this on Wikipedia of high school television stations with same wiki format that have been kept...this one is more detailed/cited! --Gak32 (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC) — Gak32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a station, which would be notable if it had a broadcast licence, but a program on a station that seems not to have a broadcast licence or an article of its own. That makes a big difference. It is already mentioned in the Mount Hope High School (Rhode Island) article and I think that, possibly with a little expansion, is as much coverage as it needs. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what would be your debate for Sunrise on Eagle's Wings article that was kept? Same thing. Husky News Network follows along with Wikipedia guidelines, as does that article - hence why that was kept. This is an informational article on a high school's unique program. ---Gak32 (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "kept". Nobody has ever nominated it for deletion. Until now... --DanielRigal (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Other 'insert subject here' have articles too!" isn't really a valid argument in a case by case basis. While it may be cool that this high school has a newscast of its own, there's nothing especially notable about it. That the fact is covered in the high school's main article should be more than enough. Bagheera (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete doesn't appear to have third party coverage. nothing in gnews [30]. LibStar (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge with school. Independent notability is insufficient to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - "It is notable due to its status as one of the best live television productions produced by high school students on a daily basis in Rhode Island" Well that's fantastic, but in whose opinion exactly? There are no secondary sources to back up this claim and, even if there were, best high school produced TV production in Rhode Island would still be a somewhat ropey claim for notability. What is written on the school's page is quite adequate - the newscast has no notability outside of its parent institution. --A1octopus (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I feel a bit like I'm kicking a puppy by doing this, but there doesn't appear to be any substantial coverage of HNN in reliable sources. Sorry. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Despite some concerns over the list's usefulness, there seems to be a clear consensus that the topic is sufficiently notable. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney princes[edit]

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

A non-notable list of characters with no inclusion criteria and totally random. Those characters in the list that have met Wikipedia:Notability have their own pages. Unlike Disney Princess or Disney Villains, this is not even a franchise. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is there no inclusion criteria? "Prince" characters in official Disney movies seems fairly well defined, to me.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are users who insist in adding characters that are not princes like the captain from Mulan or the thief from Rapunzel, but remove actual princes like Simba from The Lion King only because he is not human. But even if it had a criteria, it is still a collection of non-notable, redundant material. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any content issues with the article itself should certainly be dealt with, but this hardly seems to be the appropriate venue for doing so. I don't really have an opinion on the notability of the list (which is something that should be established in the lead of the article... although, lists tend to be less beholden to notability then regular articles in my experience). Stating that this is a redundant list grabs my attention, though. What is it redundant to?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is redundant since all information on the characters in it is already covered in their own articles and/or in the plot of the films. What is the next step? List of Disney males? As I stated in the nomination, it is not even a franchise. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I thought that you meant that there was a similar list elsewhere. I don't find the argument that the information exists elsewhere to be convincing. For one thing, you can say the exact same thing about any list on Wikipedia. Lists compile existing information into one central locale; that's their reason for being.

Anyway, I just won't cast a !vote. The article certainly needs work, but deletion doesn't seem necessary. It could be deleted though, if no one wants to work on the article itself, I guess. I was really just curious about the reasoning in the nomination, is all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see how it will lead to problems, but a good article could be written on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existence of Category:Fictional princes implies that editors don't generally find it hard to identify princes, but if "Disney princes" aren't a franchise (as noted by Lord Opeth) then there's no particular reason to have a list of them. Even if this page is kept, the plot summaries should be cut. EALacey (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates a "franchise"? Is List of YouTube personalities a "franchise"? What about List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards, List of HIV-positive people or List of people with epilepsy? No, yet some of those articles are at FL status. Go figure. WossOccurring (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks good to me. Individually notable. Seems a reasonable and appropriate list of interest and use to our readers. A merge might be worth considering, but the existence of a broader category doesn't negate the worth and appropriateness of this list article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EALacey's reasoning.--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and include entries in a Category:Princes in Disney productions cat. --EEMIV (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CLS, lists are not superseded by categories. The assertion that the topic is not notable is not supported by any evidence. In fact, if one does due diligence, per WP:BEFORE, one finds that there is an entire book about this topic and much commentary in other sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden's comments. The nomination seems to be solely based on WP:UGLY. WossOccurring (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EALacey. JBsupreme (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion was based on not being notable. But there are many references to Disney princes. The list versus category debate does not need to be re-opened. So we are left with unclear criteria or the wrong things being included. These are solved with editing not deletion.Obina (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, verifiable and per above. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list's inclusion criteria are in its title. Having a one-stop list of these Disney Princes aids readers. Sourcing is easily available. If well-meaning editors add or remove information that do not fit the criteria of "Disney princes", this calls for correction through editing, not sacking the entire article. Time to fix it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is notable, even if it not a franchise. And there are clear criteria for inclusion, even if some editors ignore them (which can be dealt with through editing). Rlendog (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a list that has parallels, credibility and useful links. Content disagreements alone do not warrant deletion.Sabiona (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While a category could adequately replace this, lists and categories are not considered redundant in these parts. Absent that, I frankly don't seeing anything in the nomination or the subsequent comments that meets deletion criteria. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern cities[edit]

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

Essay Eeekster (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay (complete with "In conclusion" paragraph). I thought that the title might be good for a redirect, but I can't find a suitable destination. EALacey (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our articles are supposed to be essays so the nomination is incomprehensible and not a reason to delete - please note the lack of any reference to policy. The article contains a good source to support the content and there are literally thousands of books devoted exclusively to this topic. The article just needs some TLC to integrate it with our other similar articles about architecture and planning such as New town. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#OR.

WP:NOT#ESSAY: Wikipedia is not for "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge."
WP:NOT#OR: Wikipedia is not for "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites."

It's worth pointing out that the word "Dubai" cannot be found in the only reference currently cited, making the entire thing WP:OR. Is that sufficient references to policy? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to demonstrate that this article is original or personal. As a specific point, you object to the inclusion of Dubai. I haven't got the references listed in the article to hand so I just search afresh and it is trivial to find numerous sources to support the article's example such as Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: a historical encyclopedia‎ — "The origins of the modern city of Dubai are..."; National Geographic, volume 148‎ - Page 509 — "Today Dubai is a modern city with every amenity". You fail to demonstrate that we cannot improve the article by summarising the many such sources and fail to demonstrate that the blunt instrument of deletion is necessary in this case. All I'm seeing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Textbook example of an essay, something we don't host, please read WP:NOT#ESSAY. PLEASE. JBsupreme (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A textbook example of a WP:VAGUEWAVE, unsupported by any evidence or examples. WP:NOT#ESSAY is, in fact, not applicable because the author does not present his personal feelings upon the matter and cites the sources which he has drawn from. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just an essay, chock full of WP:OR; the only encyclopedic content is the first sentence, which is a rather obvious definition. Mangoe (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rewrite, or stubbify We shouldn't keep personal essays in the mainspace, so deletion would be a viable outcome. Since a well-written article on this subject would be appropriate, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping the article if it were rewritten before the end of the AfD. Stubbifying it to the first sentence would be another appropriate choice. Them From Space 01:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay, original research, etc. Clearly not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. "Modern cities are cities of the present day"? Sounds like the lede for a WP:COATRACK article about something only tangentially related, which, sure enough, it is—an essay (school paper, perhaps) about issues the author thinks Dubai may be facing. This isn't remotely encyclopedic. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced essay which appears to lack any real scholarly basis, and seems to consist mostly of advice for those considering a move to Dubai. Acroterion _(talk) 02:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite The article has a few decent facts. It just needs to be rewritten so that it is not in essay form. Dragoneye776 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oahspe: A New Bible[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)

Non-notable religioius text, per WP:NB. References are insufficient to show significant coverage by major media outlets, or to show that the related religious movement is significant. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 05:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I started this article in 2003. I believe it's a subject in the 1956 Encyclopedia Americana. It does seem that some POV has crept in; but a brief look at the Books and Scholar results is enough to indicate that this is significant enough to sustain an article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book inspired several communes, besides the important one in Shalam, and many religious organizations and esoteric fraternities which are still in existence after more then 120 years; It is also meaningful to understand the thread of the "American Bibles" , like the Book of Mormon, the Urantia Book and more, and the connections between religion and masonry in the USA.Vanais (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary sources and in-faith references with no indications that this minor book has done anything more notable than be the religious text of a minor schismatic sect does not a notable article make. Not every religious topic is automatically notable by dint of being part of a religion.Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oahspe spear-pointed a movment toward oneness in the worlds religions in 1882 when such unity was unheard of. I have been a student of Oahspe for 30 years and it expresses my chosen religion, which constitutionally we all have as a basic right in this country. Thousands of Oahspes have been sold since it was printed in 1882. To say that the thousands of us around the world who study this religion are not significant (this seems related to similar efforts to close down the Faithism site) seems like an effort toward religious censorship and suppression of the basic rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I hope that I am wrong but I have seen how offended people can be when someone chooses not to believe as they do. Oashpe is a classic religious text and the general public has a right to acquire the valuable information contained in wikipedia concerning Oahspe. I know for a fact that the Oahspe site gets hits from all over the world, and this world-wide interest may have someone with traditional beliefs concerned. If so please do not fear, the accuracy of Oahspe's account of Judeo-Christian texts is continually being supported by discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library, so it is no threat to the revelation of the spiritual message contained in the origianl Hebrew and Greek texts.Lordessoflight (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Every time a religion isn't notable we get somebody bringing out the "help, help, I'm being oppressed" language. If this minor sect was so instrumental in shaping modern religion provide a RELIABLE SOURCE demonstrating it and the AfD will be irrelevant.Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stuff like this is bad referencing: Numerous publications[41] have been inspired by Oahspe, incorporating text and ideas from it, as well as reinterpretations, condensed and abridged versions.
The reference number 41 is a bibliography of primary sources and does not indicate third party discussion of the text.Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Sorry Simon, If you want me to provide reliable sources for some statement I made you will have to quote me accurately. Since I did not say that Oahspe was “instrumental in shaping modern religion,” I am not sure what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordessoflight (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks suficiently notable to me. Some sections need to be more NPOV, but AfD is not cleanup. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've barely touched on the PoV issues here. I'm talking about the lack of valid references. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite heavily, using sources such as [31] [32] [33] [34] - however, I don't know about Faithism which is also undergoing AfD, and Universal Faithists of Kosmon should not have a stand alone article. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doug, I got them all in there. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hold no brief for the Faithism article, and frankly am rather astounded that there are apparently people who still study this alleged revelation and accept its authority. I suspect that the Faithism article and Universal Faithists of Kosmon ought to be dealt with together, at minimum, or merged into the article on Oahspe itself. When I made this stub in 2003, I treated it mostly as a literary and historical curiosity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is three years old and well developed. If it is accurate it will help people studying cult behavior if not it should be fixed. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oahspe may not meet the guidelines for inclusion as a work of literature, and, certainly, some sort of guidelines are necessary in these times of verbal abundance and international connection. Nonetheless, Oahspe has influenced and inspired and uplifted many people of different faiths from around the globe over the last 125 (+/-) years. It is a good thing and, in that regard, it seems contrary to common sense to omit all mention of it from what has come to be the source of information for millions. Lovewisdompower (talk)

— Lovewisdompower (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep The references are key for me, the POV issues can be cleaned up by experts on the subject. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unlike the Faithism article, this is both notable and verifiable (though the article does need work). Pretty much any book kept more or less continually in print for 130 years is notable enough for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Historical notability. Joe Chill (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, of course. --dab (𒁳) 11:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. a number of online and offline communities exist in support of this publication. Copies can still be purchased and the book can be downloaded from several online sources. There is considerable interest worldwide in the subject. An article is therefore justified.User: Tassiewiker 28 December 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is there a way to speedy keep this and close this rather pointless discussion? I mean, looking up "Oahspe" in the Google News archive gives you this--enough said. Did the nominator even bother to do this? Or are the New York and Los Angeles Timeses not notable enough for them? This is in a book published by W.W. Norton & Company, this from a book published by Walter de Gruyter, etc. Whether the movement ever took off or not is irrelevant: the book, written by another one of these nineteenth-century middle-class professionals who got their religion from eating too much ectoplasm, is plenty notable. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: it's pretty obvious that the movement did take off, as evidenced by some of the excellent sources provided by User:Dougweller (see above; thanks, Doug); I am working on including them in the article. It's slow going, but it's quite interesting. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - From Drmies news search, there does appear to be a number of historical news articles we can use to source the article. However, the current version needs gutted and written based on reliable sources, not the mess of primary sources given right now. Without proper sourcing, though, this article doesn't stand. At best, it would exist as a stub. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operation liberty (fishing)[edit]

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

This has to be a joke! Geronimo20 (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its not a joke, but not notable enough for an entry. I didnt find any independant coverage of this subject, but i did find a thread on a fishing forum where this group were talking about their catch and release fishing trips. Juding from the photos they have posted, they went on a few trips and had maybe 30 active members. heres the link http://www.fishingkaki.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=183&sid=a66974db22e06e727f08b2dd7366e15f t=183&sid=a66974db22e06e727f08b2dd7366e15f</ref> --Brunk500 (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By a "joke", I mean thinking that an operation whose sum achievement is transfering 500 somewhat damaged fish from a commercial pond to the ocean warrants an article in Wikipedia. I could do that by myself in a lazy afternoon. --Geronimo20 (talk) 17:51, 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) 04:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks to be more of a social club than a notable organisation. Does not meet WP:ORG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - not notabel per WP:ORG. JohnCD (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban (screenplay)[edit]

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

Appears to be nothing but a self-promotion of a less than notable screen play. Eeekster (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"less than notable"? I'd be happy to submit a less POV description, but "less than notable" is obviously a maligned personal attack. Have you read it? The treatment alone was read and approved for screenplay expansion by H. Keever of Initial Entertainment Group in 2004.RENGACORP (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notable" is a standard term on Wikipedia, no offense is implied. A subject is "notable" if it has been discussed in some depth by independant reliable sources, or otherwise is considered significant enough for a wikipedia article. Many actually produced films, let alone unpublished screenplays, approved or otherwise, are not considerd "notable" in this sense. DES ^(talk) 05:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think now. I've tried to include only the facts without bias and have even pulled my name from it.THINKTANKSWORK (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, unproduced work. I suppose the reason for the article is to announce that the screenwriters predicted that terrorists would fly planes into buildings--something that was also predicted by many people prior to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. In the absence of reliable sources (or indeed, any sources) discussing this unproduced screenplay, I cannot see why it should be on Wikipedia. Steamroller Assault (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Angryapathy (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uncited vanity. --EEMIV (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable unproduced treatment/screenplay. No evidence has been provided that this screenplay is going to be filmed any time soon (note that it is claimed above that the treatment was approved for expansion into a full screenplay five years ago), nor that major media have taken notice of this work while it is still at the treatment/script stage. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly. There seems no evidence -- indeed not even any unspported claim -- that anyone took any notice of the predictions in this screenplay at the time, nor that the autors attempted to have any authority take notice. Aside from the prediction, an unproduced screenplay or treatment is not notable unless it has recieved significat public attention, and there is no statement that this one has. DES ^(talk) 20:44, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tater Tot the Dog[edit]

I don't think Tater Tot is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article. When I googled his name, most of the results had nothing to do with him. The ones that did either quoted this article word for word or were written in a style that was suspiciously similiar.--*Kat* (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Having a discussion currently on the wikipedia notability page about the notability of individual dogs. Essentially the agreement is that third party references make a dog notable. As there are none on the page apart from the IMDB link which only shows the dog as an extra and not as a proper dog actor, I'm going to delete due to the lack of third party notability. Miyagawa (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, Tator. I can't find any reliable sources backing up your performances, and IMDB doesn't list any roles except "celebrity guest" types. I had no idea dogs could be famous for being famous. Liqudluck✽talk 19:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Some mentions and limited coverage, but insufficient to establish notability to meet guidelines. I'm also concerned that this animal may be using Wikipedia for self-promotion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, my thoughts exactly. --*Kat* (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No third party references to establish notability.Coaster1983 (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaskan wolf dog[edit]

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

I am unable to find references for "Tamaskan wolfdog" or "Tamaskan wolf dog". The article's creator states that this is "Not to be confused with the original Tamaskan dog which has no alleged wolf ancestry". csd-a7 does not apply to animal breeds, so the article can't be speedied. Eastmain (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have bred tamaskan Wolfdogs myself, and they have wolf in them, the page is in its infancy, i will tidy it up soon with better references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamaskanwolfdog (talk • contribs) 12:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At best this is a content dispute concerning Tamaskan dog. At worst an outright hoax. There is no information at all supporting the claim of breeding with wolfs other than one self serving promotional site, which is used as a reference in the article. In fact, this nothing more than a cut and paste from the Tamaskan dog. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete – Unlike the Tamaskan Dog wiki page, we have provided a detailed history of the Tamaskan Wolfdog back several generations explaining the Husky, Utonagan, Wolf and Czechoslovakian Wolfdog blood in the breed. As you can see form the 'Tamaskan Dog' Page, they have NO wolf content, but see the thing is, the Tamaskan wolf dog DOES have wolf content and therefore deserves an article, moreso than the somewhat cloudy 'Tamaskan Dog' page. Its listed as a wolfdog hybrid breed (because it is one, as has been proved via references) because it is one. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamaskanwolfdog (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Tamaskan dog. As far as I can tell, this has not yet been the subject of multiple nontrivial writings in reliable sources. The claim that this breed has 'wolf ancestry' and the Tamaskan dog does not is confusing; all dogs have wolf ancestry; that's what a dog is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don’t Delete or Redirect – I don’t know if you are one of the Tamaskan dog breed history disputers, but these claims on this page are founded and backed up, PLEASE read the ENTIRE webpage’s that have been cited. They are conclusive... even from Lynn Sharkey herself (the Tamaskan dog breed founder) acknowledges wolf ancestry in her own breed. Unlike the claims on the Tamaskan dog page, you see Exhaust fumes (Alison Laing of Sugalba Kennels) has not backed up any claims on the history of the Tamaskan Dog breed other than links to her own and her friends websites, I don’t want drawn into the Tamaskan dog (as it is obviously a wiki page that was created and run by several breeder sites hoping to keep the scam going). We do however know and acknowledge that the ‘Tamaskan Wolfdog’ contain both Tamaskan dog and Wolfdog Blood. If anything it is the Tamaskan dog page should be the one up for deletion, its fraud what the ‘Blu’ kennels have done with that page, and now it’s been locked from editing.... You are right about wolf ancestry in all dogs, but the reason Lynn started the Tamaskan dog breed in 2002 was because of the legalities of wolf dog ownership in the UK, so the only way they could be brought into the country legally was by saying they has no wolf blood in them, this claim was perpetuated even after the DEFRA law changes in 2008. However the Tamaskan Wolfdog should be treated as different to Tamaskan dog in that the Utonagan is to the Northern Inuit. Wiki has a page for both those breeds... So why not the two Tamaskan breeds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamaskanwolfdog (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted this comment; I'm afraid you only get to vote once. No, I'm not involved in any controversies regarding this breed- I'd never heard of them before today, and wasn't able to find any published information about them that would help me learn about them today. Have you succeeded in finding any published sources about Tamaskan wolf dogs, like articles in reputable magazines and journals? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I am still learning how to use Wiki sorry. There is a lot of info on Google, and the breed HQ based in the USA has a website that is cited (i think). What are you looking for other than this? I suppose there are breeding lines on the www.the-no-wolf-tamaskan-tale.com breed historian page (its more than they have on the Tamaskan Dog page I might add) and video's on youtube etc. Journals or books? is that what you mean? I dont think I have seen any breed on wiki needing references like these (beacause i guess they cant be checked by moderators conveniently). I can tell you one thing, i have bred 2 litters of Tamaskan Wolfdogs, and I have seen their papers and can confirm that they are both around 30% Wolf blood. What else would you want really? www.rightpuppykennel.com have Tamaskan Wolfdogs too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamaskanwolfdog (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've suggested several things that would not meet the reliable sources requirement, but links to two or three magazine or journal articles will be fine- there are lots of significant dog breeding journals, and any notable breed will have been explored in them. Not youtube videos, not the breeders' web site, but published information about this breed in sources like Dog Fancy or Dog and Kennel, for example. I'm sure you would know more than I do about the best dog-breeding magazines and journals. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks independent, reliable sources to establish notability. This breed is simply too new to have third-party sources interested in it.Coaster1983 (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete – The article has both independent and reliable sourses (from the breed founder included) unlike the controversial Tamaskan dog page. If these sources are not reliable, could you show me an example of a reliable sourse on a similar breed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukwolfdogs (talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) — Ukwolfdogs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you haven't already done so, you can read the guidelines on reliable sources for an answer to your question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An example breed article would be Beagle since it is at Featured Article quality (which is the highest quality rating on Wikipedia).Coaster1983 (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nomination is correct: this animal is not the same as the obviously notable Tamaskan dog breed. The "Tamaskan wolf dog" is not referenced by any independent published sources, and isn't recognized by any major kennel club or breed registry. The article is clearly the work of breeders with a conflict of interest, and there appears to be no material which could be used to write a neutral, reliably-sourced encyclopedia article. A redirect would be inappropriate, since it may cause undue confusion. Steven Walling 22:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Steven Walling, the Tamaskan Wolfdog does have Tamaskan Dog blood in it... The person who started the breed is called Lynn Sharkey/Hardy and if you read the detail on this web page http://www.the-no-wolf-tamaskan-tale.com/id12.html you will see that the not only does the Tamaskan dog have wolfdog blood (she clearly says it in the e-mail extracts if you bother to read it), it also has blood of a pure wolf in the founding lines. If you are truly neutral,you will know that the "Tamaskan dog" atricle is not referenced by any independent published sources, and isn't recognized by any major kennel club or breed registry either (and it never will with the shady breeding thats has gone on with the Tamaskan dog). If this page is to be deleted, so should the Tamaskan dog page! The Tamaskan dog has not been mentioned in ANY dog books i have read in the local library (and I read a LOT about dogs)... According to the breeders of the tamaskan dog, it seems that it is merely the new name for the Utonagan... again if you read the webpage mentioned above you will see that dogs that were BORN utonagans suddenly got re-named Tamaskans overnight. At least with the Tamaskan wolf dog the controversy has been settled, no lies, no bull. Just a dog breed, a Wolf Dog Breed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamaskanwolfdog (talk • contribs) 13:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to nominate a different article for deletion, you are welcome to do so, but that isn't relevant to the discussion of whether this article should be kept or deleted. The question of which set of dogs has more wolf ancestry is clearly very important to you personally, but it isn't particularly important to the deletion discussion, which is about whether the breed is notable, not about whether it is wolfy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There is only one known breeder for this type of dog. The other breeder listed does not seem to exist and they have stolen the same kennel name as the original founder of the Tamaskan Dog, suspicious and malicious all in one. The Tamaskan Wolfdog is literally Tamaskan Dogs crossed with wolf hybrids and they should be labelled as such.--Exhaustfumes (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a10, duplicative article. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Race to Witch Mountain[edit]

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

Needs to be developed . Adi4094 (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A10. There is already a far better, sourced article about the film with the correct title at Race to Witch Mountain.--Michig (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Michig points out, it's been done. Needless to say, the article's creator is welcome to edit that article or any other. It takes some time to learn the Wikipedia format for writing, sourcing, etc. Mandsford (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 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 redirect; an obvious target, most probably unknown to the non-expert author of the initial text. Twri (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pentavalent impurity[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary jhe_iv (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Transwiki to wiktionary, for obvious reasons. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve There seems to be plenty at Google Books to establish that this is a notable subject. A merge if it's discussed somewhere else would be fine too, but I don't see why we wouldn't want an article here in addition to a definition at Wiktionary. Trivalent impurity redirect to Acceptor (semiconductors), but neither impurity type seems to be actually discussed in that article. Maybe N-type semiconductor? If they have significance in other applications, that's all the more reason an indepentent article would be useful and appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This article (and "Trivalent impurity") were obviously created by a person who doesn't know the subject well. I was bold and redirected this page where it belongs. Twri (talk) 05:42, 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. G3 Speedy. Identified hoax . SilkTork *^YES! 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery in the Outback[edit]

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

PROD removed. See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Demon of River Heights Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as with the other AFD, lack of verifability as well as crystalballery. –MuZemike 18:12, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Financial[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ONE Financial

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Repeatedly recreated under mutiple redirects, including a previous AfD resulting in delete.

Part of a larger spam campaign See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#One_Financial_Spam

Clearly seems to be nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article. Hu12 (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot easily locate reliable sources for this article; searching is complicated by a couple of other service organizations with the exact same name. I also cannot locate much information on the parent org as well. The article was originally written by an agent of the company's creative agency, which does not bode well. There is also a section which seems to imply they "introduced" the MT4 platform, which is complete nonsense - they had nothing to do with the platform, they simply seem to have branded a front end that uses it. Kuru ^talk 00:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#One_Financial_Spam. Evidently part of a larger spam campaign. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. We should not have articles on every small company, and particularly not when presented as part of a clear spam campaign. It's hard to search for the name of the company (there are many false hits), but it appears there is no independent verification of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - fails WP:CORP. The fact that a spam campaign seems to be involved doesn't help; the fact that this same article (more or less) has not survived past AfDs doesn't help. I suggest salting this for now, as it appears as though those involved in the spam campaign are recreating these types of articles repeatedly. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saral Accounts[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 3 google news archive hits on the company. There's a brief review here, but it seems a different product, and it's too short to even figure that out. Pcap ping 07:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an accounting and inventory management software without any showing of general interest notability or technical or historical importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pcap. Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines, not finding enough significant, reliable 3rd party coverage to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Narsa Goud[edit]

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

An unreferenced glory page about "one of the richest men of the then princely state of Hyderabad, Deccan". Tagged for problems since 2007. - Altenmann >t 07:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no references, vanity. This author seems to be bent on creating articles about members of the Goud family, all of which have been deleted. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article--Sodabottle (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as mentioned above, smacks of vanity. Nothing really notable included, doesn't appear to pass WP:ANYBIO. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Some snippets on Google books suggest there was a philanthropist by the name Narsa Goud (also spelled Narsagoud), who may be notable, but the available information is insufficient to establish notability. So it may be best to delete this unsourced and hagiographic article for now, and recreate an encyclopedic entry, if and when sources can be accessed. Abecedare (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons with military service. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons with military service - U[edit]

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

Unnecessary, as there are no entries. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same reply as I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Members of the Canadian Senate - X. Restructure by redirecting this page, then edit the templates.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons with military service ; as people will expect this list to exist, and may explicitly type it in, so point it to the index, and make a note there that no people with surnames starting with U exist under this condition. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no strong objection against a redirect. I think it should be a redirect to List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons - A, however, I would not worry about deleting it because it really is not taking up much space. NorthernThunder (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 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 redirect to List of Members of the Canadian Senate. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Members of the Canadian Senate - X[edit]

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

Unnecessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be deleted, but it should certainly be restructured. There is a series of articles here instead of one huge list, so instead of deleting it simply redirect this page to either the "W" and/or "Y" page, and then change the templates. We certainly do not need "This page is intentionally left blank" pages on Wikipedia, but redirects are usually helpful.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (Rename) to List of Members of the Canadian Senate ; as people will expect this list to exist, and may explicitly type it in, so point it to the index (rename the article to redlink and rebuild as an index to the other articles), and make a note there that no people with surnames starting with X exist under this condition. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, that proposed list has just been created, through the WP:AFC process. That's a perfectly valid argument- people will expect an index list to exist when we break a subject up into 26 lists. I'd agree with redirecting this blank list to the main list, and making a note of the absence of X's there. Should one ever be elected/appointed, recreating this list would be trivial. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:16, 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 redirect to List of Major League Baseball players. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players: X[edit]

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

No reason to have this page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same reply as I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Members of the Canadian Senate - X. Restructure by redirecting this page, then edit the templates.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Major League Baseball players, and make a note there that no player with a surname starting with X exist. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 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 merge to Wunschpunsch. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wunschpunsch (cartoon)[edit]

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

No sources, not notable Bdb484 (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @249 · 04:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A cartoon based on a book by a very well known writer non-notable? Try again. The lack of sources is indeed a problem, but that's called a lack of verifiability. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it with the article on Wunschpunsch the book. Sources don't support a separate article on the animated adaptation at this time. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @235 · 04:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the information to Wunschpunsch the book. I agree with Sharksaredangerous. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems like a sensible outcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 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, no outstanding delete votes (besides nom), and appears to pass WP:GNG. non admin closure TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otar Japaridze[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE unless the World Junior Championship is considered the highest amateur level of a sport. I would think that "junior" would make that answer no. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A world championship is the highest level of any sport. The word "junior" is just an indication of the age of the competitors. A cursory Google search shows plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. P.S. If you are going to nominate more than one similar article with the same reason, please bundle them. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had them grouped, but this one had more of a claim of notability (Georgian National champ), so I felt they should be evaluated individually. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, competed at the highest level of sport on national level (Georgian national champion) and competed at the World Junior championships, which passes WP:FIGURE/N. He qualified an Olympic spot at the 2009 Nebelhorn Trophy, though it remains to be seen if it will be used. I haven't seen anything definitive yet on if Allison Reed is eligible to compete for Georgia at the Olympics, but Georgia, afaik, has not given up the spot. Kolindigo (talk) 00:40, 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) 01:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @235 · 04:38, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Roanoke[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. – Eastmain (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @234 · 04:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I linked to the reservoir which it mentioned, and that didn't have a page yet; there's clearly some local Roanoke coverage that would be notable (reservoirs running dry!) that would provide some context for this. Needs work on the surrounding articles. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historic (1925) and well established summer camp that has received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Zaikina[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE unless the World Junior Championship is considered the highest amateur level of a sport. I would think that "junior" would make that answer no. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the highest level for athletes of that age. I don't see any guidelines that say junior champions can't be included. And apart from the whole age discrimination thing, if you strip off the bad sources a cursory Google search shows there is plenty of reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @234 · 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Being a junior does not automatically deprive the subject of her notability - not even close. The ground of AfD nomination does not seem to make sense at all.Blodance (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree that competing at a world junior championships confers, or gives any real indication of, notability. Junior championships in sport are very common and many of them are open entry or close to it. It is not the highest amateur level of the sport, so it can't pass WP:ATHLETE. I wouldn't say junior championship competitors can't be notable; some may very well pass WP:GNG. But in this case there appears to be very little secondary coverage of the skater other than results and template bios - I can't possibly see how she would pass WP:GNG.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:07, 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. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brand New Eyes Tour[edit]

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

Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the tour below for the same reasons

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single non-independent source fails WP:RS. Naming the dates for the Brand New Eyes Tour is also promotional since it is still ongoing. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable, independent sources to prove notability. WossOccurring (talk) 22:42, 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, (X! · talk) · @234 · 04:36, 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. Clear consensus to retain David Austen as a bluelink. Further discussions on merging should take place on the appropriate talk page. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Austen[edit]

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

Not very notable minor leaguer. I don't believe his one award makes him notable. Alex (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim minor league players. -Spanneraol (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have adequate coverage to support notability, e.g., this and this. If he is notable in Venezuela, he is notable. Rlendog (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources provided by Rlendog.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @233 · 04:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim minor league players. BRMo (talk) 18:01, 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.

AfD is not a vote, but has to be decided on its merits. In the discussion below, the following has been put forward as evidence for notability:

Mentioned or listed in the following:
1. East Coast wineries: a complete guide from Maine to Virginia. This has been characterized as a "commercial wine guide" without independent inclusion criteria, which has not been refuted.
2. Two of their wines have been mentioned at WineSpectator.com ten years ago.
3. Listing as one of "Western Virginia's charming but lesser-known wineries" at roanoke.com.
4. Listing in Fodor's guide to Virginia and Maryland (no reference given)
5. Listing in East Coast wineries: a complete guide from Maine to Virginia By Carlo DeVito
6. Four paragraphs from an interview with the owners at winespectator.com.
7. Article in a local paper[35]. (It has been claimed that this was "carried by [...] a major metropolitan paper in North Carolina", but no evidence has been provided for this claim.)
8. NYT writes in 2000: "Even in the commonwealth, it is hard to find the much-honored Valhalla reds (like a cabernet franc called Gotterdammerung and a shiraz) that Dr. James Vascik, a neurosurgeon, produces 2,000 feet above the Roanoke Valley."[36] The argument that "[this] was a 1-line passing mention in a travel article, thus failing WP:CORP", has not been refuted. The quote "much-honored" has been taken as proof of such honors, but no concrete honors since the ones of 1998 (below) have been brought forward.
These do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but rather meet the invalid criteria, such as "being mentioned in a wine review or wine region overview" and "Being the subject of one article or profile by itself in an otherwise verifiable and reliable source like Wine Spectator".
Awards: The winery won two or three state awards in 1998. [37]. Notability for these awards has not been established, thus meeting the Invalid criterion "Being an award winner in regional competitions (such as a county or state fair)".
Features:
1. This is one of two Virginia vineyards to process its grapes underground.
2. It has a 2,000 square foot cave.
There seems to be no criterion at WP:WINETOPIC according to which these would establish notability. The underground process is only mentioned as an aside, and does not seem to be notable by itself.
Other:
1. Google hits.
2. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.

In summa, it has not been shown that any of the above meets any of the criteria of the applicable guidelines WP:WINETOPIC, WP:COMPANY, and WP:N. — Sebastian 03:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valhalla Vineyards[edit]

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

Non-notable winery that does not pass WP:CORP nor the Wine Project's internal guidelines for winery notability. Prod was contested over 6 months ago with the promise that the winery was notable and that reliable sources could be found to demonstrate this in the article. After waiting several months and checking to see if I could find the sources, myself, I do not believe there is enough independent, third-party reliable sources to make an article that adequately demonstrates notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 16:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the East Coast wineries: a complete guide from Maine to Virginia‎ - Page 308 thing on Google Books, it's a start at least Polarpanda (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a commercial wine guide that basically just confirms that the winery exist--not that it is notable for anything. Every mom and pop restaurant in the world is listed in some commercial restaurant guide (including my local pizza joint down the street in Seattle, Washington), but those restaurant guides alone do not establish notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 16:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and further expand and source. Appreciate the Wine Project's proposed guideline. Happily, not all the results of searches [38][39] are listings or press releases.... as many deal with the subject in context and allow consideration for the meeting of GNG criteria for inclusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the second link you posted are essentially all commercial wine guides and looking at the 1st link, I see no reliable sources that indicate the winery has done anything notable. There are only casual mentions of the winery, much like the casual mentions that any mom and pop restaurant receives but clearly do pass the GNG. Another editor seemingly spent 6 months looking for reliable sources to expend the article and obviously couldn't find anything that would help pass WP:CORP. Again, looking at those links you posted is there anything you see there that establishes ANY kind of notability for the winery beyond the simple act of just existing? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. When RS coverage to this sparse degree is all that can be produced ([40][41][42][43]), I think it ought to be deleted (potentially userfied until substantial RS does exist). MURGH ^disc. 07:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see that the article or the discussion above establishes any notability sufficient for Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics). Among the hundreds of thousands of wineries of the world, what have they done do belong among the perhaps 1% or so that motivate a Wikipedia article? Nothing else than the other 99%, it seems after having read the article and the discussion above. If I'm wrong, please insert the relevant information into the article, properly referenced. And be careful when googling for this name, because there is also a Valhalla Vineyard Pinot Noir produced by Anderson's Conn Valley Vineyards in Napa, which (unlike the wines of this winery) gets reviewed by e.g. Parker. Tomas e (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @228 · 04:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I spent 10 minutes on this and was able to expand. Multiple (not just one) wine spectator pieces and a fair amount of other coverage besides. one local paper, while trying to point readers to the lesser-known wineries in the region, refers to Valhalla in a list of three of the best-known. here's that article.Vivisel (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Pizza and Pasta is often touted as one of "Best Pizza" places in Seattle and also gets a fair amount of local coverage as one of the "Best known" pizza places. But that doesn't mean it is notable enough to pass WP:CORP. While it does have local "acclaim", it has done nothing outside of simply being a pizza place. Same with Valhalla. They have done nothing outside of simply being a winery. They've received "2" mediocre wine reviews from Wine Spectator (which rates 10,000 wines every year). Tasting notes are no different than restaurant reviews-which every single mom and pop restaurant has received dozens of. Of the "multiple" Wine Spectator coverage-most aren't even talking about THIS winery but rather the Conn Valley Vineyard's label in California (completely unrelated to this Virginia winery) and the "Unfilitered" entry is also not talking about the winery but rather a golf event at the Valhalla Golf Club in Kentucky. Of the minisicule Wine Spectator coverage that actually does mention the Virginia winery all we have is brief one line mentions when talking about Virginia wine in general, an advert for a grape stomp during harvest the tasting notes. This is not the type of of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources... that WP:CORP spells out as indicating notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 05:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like you read the pieces cited. You poke fun at the "multiple" Wine Spectator coverage as "brief one line mentions", but if you had read this, cited in the article and linked to in my comment, you'd know that's not the case. Also, more than 2 reviews although I only linked to two. Anyhow! Have a great evening. oh, also, found an AP article on lexisnexis. Vivisel (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medals in local/regional wine "contests" means absolutely nothing in this case, since they just exist for promotional purposes. This type of information actually does not belong in an encyclopedic article (because of this ongoing AfD I added a "trivia" template to emphasize this rather than to delete it, which I would usually do with similar text), and if this is the only information that can be digged up it's very likely that a winery is not notable. By the way, in most contests, a bronze medal means little more than the wine was liquid (wine that fail to get even the lowest medal are usually those that are so bad that they are considered an embarassment). However, being regularly rated by Wine Spectator and other international wine publications could mean that a winery in fact is notable. In this case I see references to one 1998 and one 1999, and 1998 was apparently the first vintage. If most of their range has been rated by WS in all or almost all vintages since 1998, they could be notable. However, if WS just tasted a few when they were a novelty, IMHO this does not establish notability since it doesn't come above the level of "non-trivial mention" to reach "significant coverage". So have they been regularly rated (i.e. received significant coverage) or not? Tomas e (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I checked out WS (I don't subscribe but search is possible), and the number of ratings is exactly two ("multiple"?). The search engine also finds three tasting notes for three vintages of "Anderson's Conn Valley Pinot Noir Napa Valley Valhalla Vineyards" but as the name indicates that's produced somewhere else by another winery. I previously checked out Wine Advocate, and there it is zero hits, but 11 vintages of Anderson's Conn Valley's Pinot have been rated, so I would consider that producer notable. "Two wines tasted once by WS several years ago, was never repeated, didn't make it into WA" is a formula definitely not enough for notability based on this type of sources, I'm afraid. It's still delete for me. Tomas e (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Wine Spectator piece I linked to above contains an interview with the vineyard's owner and a few solid paragraphs about the winery. 2 AP pieces on nexis, one of which is a 500-word piece completely devoted to the specific winery, which seems to be essentially unique for its production methods in VA (1 of 2 that do it this way, out of how many VA wineries?). I'm no wine expert, and I have nothing to do with the wine wikiproject, I've never been to this winery, and what do I know really. but seems to me that this is a relatively important VA winery, as they go. that may not count for much in the grand scheme of things, but it seems to be notable. Vivisel (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)173.76.21.152 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC) (oops, forgot to login)[reply]

Yes, and other than this one piece obviously WS doesn't think it's worth to review their wines again. So obviously not regularly covered by any international wine magazine. A one-time mention by WS is absolutely not sufficient to establish notability. Tomas e (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be unique in the juvenile and still developing Virginia wine industry, it is not not unique or notable in the greater world of wine. In fact, the concept of using gravity to help crush and press grapes has been around since the Greeks and Romans were making wine. This is akin to say that an artisan bakery is notable because they are one of the first to go back to using wood fire brick ovens in a particular city. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that a totality of facts about a given location or object often establishes notability. Just because it's an old technique doesn't negate the fact that in a state with a significant number of wineries, there are only two that produce wine this way, of which this is one. More broadly, as I said, there is an AP article completely dedicated to this winery and another that discusses it (which you removed from the article, incorrectly claiming it wasn't verifiable), there is a Wine Spectator article with several paragraphs dedicated to the winery and a short interview with its winemaker! I may not know how to wield WP:VARIOUSABBREVIATIONS but I am sure there are scads of excellent subjects in this encyclopedia that have not been blessed with that level of press coverage. Vivisel (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Partial cross posting from article talk) The notability of this subject is so weak that even when someone tries to use what scant mentioning of the winery there are, they have as much success as squeezing water from a stone. I'm still not sure where this "AP" news story is. Considering that the AP's own archive search shows ZERO results for "Valhalla Vineyards" and searching for the exact headline and AP details of the article that was used as a ref comes up with zip, nada, zilch and nothing-I think we have an issue with WP:V. Articles on truly notable subjects do not have this many issues with finding reliable sources that can be verified. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One user's inability to access two Associated Press articles doesn't constitute non-notability, and though I'm a wiki-novice I don't see anything about "if you have trouble finding more than 2 AP articles" in notability guidelines. (Editors: how many pages does this standard mandate deleted?!) As I said on the article talk page, if you don't have a book in your personal library, do you summarily delete citations to it? But I'm done here. I can't believe I've spent this much time on this... Vivisel (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. With a book there is (hopefully) an ISBN which allows anyone to track the book down at a library. This may take time but it is doable. Under WP:V you have to give enough information about your source to where people can find the source and verify the information. If someone post a book ref, without an ISBN number, and there is no evidence to support that the book even exist then it could be removed. The AP archives are fairly extensive, especially for articles that were picked up on the wire. The fact that the AP own archive has no mention of Valhalla shows at the very least this wasn't picked up on the news wire and at most was distinctly local, trivial mention. Considering that this "AP story" is about the results of a promotional marketing event, I strongly suspect this may have just been a press release affiliated with the marketing association. Again, we're squeezing water from stones because there is not the type of of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.... This should be a big red flag that we are dealing with a subject of distinctly questionable notability at best. Truly notable subjects don't have this issue. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, The article (one of two) is not about the results of a promotional marketing event. It mentions them, and it is about wine yields in Virginia for the year. I'd encourage other folks with LexisNexis access to check. Vivisel (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage and recognition to warrant inclusion, albeit weakly. People write about wineries and breweries. They're tourist attractions and the welle established ones seem to meet our general guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gift shops and local restaurants are tourist attraction too and frankly you can find more "...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" for many gift shops and restaurants than you can for this winery. As a member of WP:WINE, I certainly love the topic of wine and ardently want Wikipedia's coverage of wine to be the best on the internet but I can't let my romanticism blend me to the reality that a winery is ultimately a business. There are literally over a 100,000 wineries in the world and much like restaurants and gift shops they are only notable for simply existing. No self respecting encyclopedia would aim to be a WP:DIRECTORY of gift shops and restaurants. We expect more "...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" that indicate that these gift shops and restaurants are notable for doing something more than just existing. Why do we give wineries a "free pass" on WP:CORP that we do not extend to gift shops and restaurants? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are oodles of articles discussing this subject in various reliable sources including the Roanoke Times, the Richmond paper, Chalottesville papers, Washington Post, and other such as this one [44] that are very substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oodles? When do brief, casual or distinctly local interest pieces count as "oodles"? And again how is this different from what any gift shop or mom & pop local restaurant receives? The local Star paper link you posted talks about the winery being converted from a peach orchard. How is this notable? How is this more notable than the hundreds of new restaurants converted from some previous (even historic) buildings into new restaurants? How is this winery in any way notable for anything else then merely existing? As I mentioned before, while I am a tireless advocate for expanding Wikipedia's wine coverage, I see no receive why we should disregard Wikipedia's notability policies to give a winery a free pass with the same scant, insignificant and trivial coverage than any mom or pop restaurant receives because it is a winery. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes oodles. Pages and pages and pages of google news returns. I didn't even have to check google books. And let's not pretend that everything printed in reliable independent sources gets included there. Furthermore, I gave a good example of very substantial coverage providing an article entirely about the winery and it's very large wine cave (one of two in the state at the time I think it said?). And your local coverage claims don't wash when the winery is being covered as in this article by major market media outside of its home state. The "local star paper" is a large media market paper in North Carolina. The Washington Post is also a large paper and they've been noted there repeatedly. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify, with links, which general guidelines you're refererring to? This winery obviously fails WP:CORP and Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics)? Is there another guideline that you apply which confers notability on all tourist attractions or anything mentioned in a local newspaper??? Or are you just saying that each and every of the world's hundreds of thousands of wineries automatically are notable? Tomas e (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It passes the general notability guildeline and wp:Corp "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." There are oodles of cites including the one noted above that isn't local and that gives very substantial coverage to this winery. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these cites? I see oodles of cites referring to Valhalla Vineyard Pinot Noir produced by Anderson's Conn Valley Vineyards in Napa, but that isn't the subject of discussion here. This particular winery is in Virginia. Kindly point out a couple examples of this "substantial coverage" to which you're referring. I'm not seeing it. I see passing mentions, but nothing really substantial. The Star article you linked to (nice article too) doesn't quite qualify; note that even Wine Spectator routinely profile obscure wineries but such profiles don't make them notable. This winery has a weak claim of notability by being one of the few wineries that perform processing underground, but that in itself isn't so unusual that it warrants an article in an encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is an example of why the Wikipedia Wine Project developed the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics). Even in the article's currently expanded state, I see only facts that bring notability up to local or regional standards, which doesn't quite meet the criteria for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied the proposed guideline and consider it inferior to the general notability guideline as it seems to rely upon subjective notions of "significance" which are not articulated further. In any case, as it has not been accepted as a proper guideline, it carries no weight here. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete//incubate Just not enough coverage yet. Might well be in the future. NBeale (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wineries are a touchy subject when it comes to notability. They tend to get local coverage, and sometimes the wines get national mention in the form of reviews. That really isn't enough to establish them as being worthy in an encyclopedia. There tends to be romance, art, and passion associated with wines, but when it comes down to it, most wineries are simply small businesses. Medals awarded in competitions really shouldn't be cited as reasons for being notable. Judging tends to be so varied that almost any wine will win something if you send it to enough fairs/competitions/whatever. This winery really isn't any more notable that hundreds or thousands of others across the country. The Bethling ^(Talk) 05:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Keep A few seconds of searching demonstrates that this winery is award-winning and so evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion above and the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) linked just above your vote. These awards, created solely for promotional purposes are of zero value to establishing notability. Tomas e (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The awards in question are a peer review and being published in a professional journal, constitute a source of the highest quality. Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) on the other hand is not a guideline - please do not misrepresent it. It is just the personal opinion of particular editors and has no standing here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed guideline is written by people who are knowledgeable about the subject--which is important in critically evaluating sources. Pretty much you just fell for the classic con of marketing above in being "wowed" by a wine competition medal. People that don't understand the wine industry or are not knowledgeable about the subject tend to fall for the same con as well, which is at the root of most advertising and marketing. Winning a medal at these wine tasting events is not like winning a medal at the Olympics. There are literally thousands of these tasting events featuring hundreds of thousands of wines every year. The point is not to pick out the categorically "best" wine but rather to give as many entrants a marketing tool which they can use to "impress" consumers who fall for such things. Take the "Virginia Governor's" cup mentioned in the Valhalla Vineyards article. Of the 233 wines who entered the competition 133 won a medal. As all the wineries entered multiple wines it ended up that every single winery won at least 1 medal. It is like your school's athletic "field day" where everyone gets a ribbon. The "peer reviewed" ones are the biggest scam since winemakers are hesitant to criticize the work of a peer because when it is that peer's turn to review the wines, they fret getting a similarly critically review. (We see this folly play out many times in the "peer tasting" panels of AOC wines in France). Now to know things like this, you have to be the industry and/or be well versed in the subject matter, otherwise Wikipedia will fall for the same scams that Colonel Warden and Vivisel fell for. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are excellent points that the closing admin needs to take into consideration. Remember, this is not a vote. A deletion decision is based on the merits of the arguments presented here, and so far the 'keep' arguments have not held water. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, this can't be emphasized enough, wine awards are as common as state fairs, and the competitions themselves in most cases would not warrant Wikipedia inclusion. A small handful of global competitions are notable, but the vast number of accolades even they award ought not to be relevant to an encyclopedic article. The key issue in this AFD is if the winery itself has received thorough coverage in third-party reliable sources. "Awards" and the odd tasting note need to be disregarded. MURGH ^disc. 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. We have ample testimony of reliable sources including Wine Spectator, New York Times and Vineyard & Winery Management. Your personal opinion as to the merits of this vineyard are just that - your own personal opinion - and so carries little weight. I have no personal opinion about the place but consider that we have ample support from well-established professional sources and these easily trump your opinion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense? Did you read what I wrote? The awards are without encyclopedic merit. Please understand. Nothing else. I have no personal bias towards this winery either. Do forgive, I must admit to not having spotted the in-depth coverage in NYT in this mess. MURGH ^disc. 23:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT reference is not long but it seems significant: "Even in the commonwealth, it is hard to find the much-honored Valhalla reds (like a cabernet franc called Gotterdammerung and a shiraz) that Dr. James Vascik, a neurosurgeon, produces 2,000 feet above the Roanoke Valley." If the NYT describes their wines as "much-honored" then their status is evidently notable. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the Wine Spectator coverage is essentially "tasting notes"? Are you aware that Wine Spectator reviews over 10,000 wines every year and that tasting notes are just as common as the hundreds of thousands of restaurant reviews that take place in magazine, newspapers and online forums across the globe? Having 2 wines reviewed by Wine Spectator doesn't infer ANY degree of notability. They certainly don't come even close to fulfilling any of WP:CORP's expectation for ...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.... Now let's look at the other "sources"--

New York Times-Actually where is this? High beam is not coming up with anything. Google is not coming up with anything promising nor does Google news include a NYT article. Ultimately searching the New York Times archive itself also produce zero results.
Vineyard & Winery Management-Where is this too? Again Google and Google news produce no usable RS. The magazine (which is not very notable itself) doesn't have a good archive search but searching magazine website also doesn't yield any results.
Washington Post? Let's see, the only mention at all is a brief tasting note on a 2001 Rosé featured the Post's wine review blog? A single tasting note? The WA Post blog does hundreds of tasting notes each year. This is substantial coverage? How is this different from what any mom and pop deli receives?
What others, let see local regional papers like Roanoke Times? Again brief mentions not much different than local regional papers talking about local restaurants
These questions can not be asked enough--What has this winery done that is notable apart from simply existing? How is this meager coverage any different than what the tens of thousands of Mom & Pop restaurants receive all the time? How are these meager, casual mentions and tastings notes coming close to the WP:CORP call for "...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources..."? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Ah, I see the NYT time now a general interest piece on Virginia wine where Valhalla gets a casual one line mention in a larger piece that is about a general topic. "Much honored"? A single, off hand comment is what you are staking your claims of notability on? Seriously? It is not even from Frank Prial who is the actual wine columnist for the NYT. It is a casual, brief mention in a travel piece. How many local mom and pop restaurants are "much honored" in their individual communities? I wonder how many articles in the New York Times Travel section notes these "much honored" local interest places? Those types of casual mentions in travel pieces is a very weak pillar to establish notable. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So let me see if I can get this new standard of notability you're asserting straight. NYT pieces only count if they're written by the "the actual" wine columnist, AP articles only count if you can find them without using LexisNexis. Novel production methods only count if they're not reviving old ones. Let me just reiterate: We have here 2 Associated Press articles, one completely dedicated to this vineyard, several paragraphs with a brief interview in Wine Spectator, tasting notes in Wine Spectator, 1 mention in the NYT as "much-honored", tasting notes in the Post, and lots of hits in regional papers. We have a vineyard that is one of two in Virginia to use its production method and by numerous accounts is a standout winery in an up-and-coming region. I challenge you to apply that standard more broadly and see how many perfectly good articles come under the knife! Vivisel (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "new standard" of notability being suggested here, only the standard given already in WP:CORP. The key word in that guideline is "substantial". You are mischaracterizing the NYT piece; it doesn't count not because of the author, but because of the insubstantial coverage, which was a 1-line passing mention in a travel article, thus failing WP:CORP. AP articles should be findable from AP itself; I believe you when you say you have found such an article through Lexis Nexis, but if the coverage is anything like the NYT, or a press release, then that would fail WP:CORP as well. You say one AP source is a 500 word piece devoted to this specific winery. Okay... but is that coverage significant in the context of the wine business? Tons of non-notable restaurants get reviewed all the time in notable publications, but that's simply something to be expected in that business, nothing unusual. Tasting notes and local coverage isn't relevant for a globally-relevant topic such as wine.

This whole argument illustrates the extent that WP:CORP doesn't address secondary coverage specifically related to wineries. For that, we have WP:NOTWINE as a proposed guideline. Within that guideline, see WP:RESTTEST for clarification on what coverage is appropriate. That is the position the 'delete' proponents are arguing from.

Now, I admit that there's a weak claim to notability through having a fairly unique production method, but it isn't uncommon to process wine underground under the influence of gravity. They certainly haven't pioneered that method or done anything to make them notable.

A winery needs to have coverage beyond what any other winery normally gets for simply existing, just like a restaurant. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Mzoli's - an article about a restaurant supported by references to the local press. This is not just any article but one which has been well-scrutinised by the Wikipedia community. This demonstrates that there is no consensus for your narrow, exclusive agenda. Our notability guideline makes it clear that this working definition is not importance or fame but the existence of reliable sources. If there are good sources then you pass whether you're a restaurant a winery, a lighthouse or whatever. That's why we have 3 million articles and counting. And it is this wide, comprehensive coverage which is Wikipedia's great strength. We are here to make available the "sum of human knowledge", not just some small fraction. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa nelly, there is a lot of strawman flying! Let see if we can clean up some of the straw. First, I was commenting on the silliness of staking a winery's notability on the appearance of the quaint phrase "much honored" as if in one fell swoop the NYT granted divine notability to this humble winery by use of this phrase. The silliness was compounded by the fact that this divine notability wasn't even bestowed by the NYT wine writer. Second, the only consideration we are making is WP:CORP expectation of significant, independent coverage. If you notability rest on an obscure AP article that obviously wasn't even picked up on the newswire, then you are falling far short of WP:CORP's standards--whether or not you meet "my" standards is irrelevant. Third, it is is not "novel" if it has already been done before. That is kinda self evident. You could start a strange, new online "wiki" thing tomorrow but it will not be "novel". Fourth, yes the Wine Project does hold wine article strictly to Wikipedia policies. We don't give a rat's @$$ about this whole "inclusionist vs deletionist" thing. We only care about crafting a quality encyclopedia and we have numerous "perfectly good articles" to show for it. There is a reason why every single WP:WINE member that has contributed to this discussion has recommended delete. It is because we are constantly knee-deep involved in wine related articles and are intimately familiar with the fact that there are tens of thousands of wineries in the world and a scant few are truly notable. As abundantely evident by the painful attempts to squeeze water out of the rocks of meager reliable sources and significant coverage--this winery is categorically not one of the scant few wineries that are truly notable. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 02:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, your project does not strictly hew to Wikipedia policies - it is trying to create its own local policies for this subject. If we apply the standard policies then this article is fine as we have numerous reliable sources and no tap-dancing about why they don't count. If we look through the category Category:Virginia wineries, we see that this winery and its article are the best of all those for this wine-growing region. The way you talk, there are thousands of better articles but they are not there. You should go clean up these other inferior articles and then get back to us after you have a proper basis for comparison. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. As you have repeatedly demonstrate, it is difficult for even intelligent, good faith editors to objectively evaluate the quality and context of reliable sources for wine. People who are not familiar with the subject of the wine fall for the marketing and advertizing scams of thinking tasting notes, brief mentions in travel pieces, and medals indicate that a winery is "special". They fall for the romanticism of wine and forget that a winery is not that different from the many local mom & pop restaurants out. If a local coffee shop in Chancellorsville is considered to serve "the best coffee" in Virginia, and is noted with the same amount of meager coverage like a brief, 1 line mention in a NYT travel piece, would you be contending that coffee shop is notable? It would obviously be the "best of all those for this [coffee drinking] region"? The best garage band in Jacksboro, Texas? They only have around 4,000 people and not many garage bands so a band like my cousins which got scant coverage in Austin & Dallas newspapers must be notable since they are best of what garage bands are coming out of Jacksboro. It is a pretty poor argument to say just because an area doesn't have many figures in particular category, then we should lower the bar of notability and grade on a curve. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. There are entire books exclusively devoted to the wine industry of Virginia - The economics of wine grape production in Virginia‎; Virginia wine country; The cost of growing wine grapes in Virginia, etc and so it is a notable wine growing region. If this is the best of our articles on the matter then it is well worth keeping and building upon. It is the other articles which require attention from your project. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. While the topic of Virginia wine is notable, that doesn't mean "the best" (a POV assessment, BTW) Virginia winery is notable. It certainly doesn't mean that the "best Wikipedia article" on a Virginia winery is notable either. (Also when did having a Wikipedia make you notable to then have a Wikipedia article? A tad circular there) Honestly it is a stretch if Valhalla even merits mentioning in the Virginia wine article. This logic is way off base. New York-style pizza is notable, and there are entire books devoted to it as well as many travel guides for communities across the US that makes mention of which ever restaurant has "the best" New York-style pizza. Would you honestly argue that kind of meager, trivial association of being "the best New York-style pizza in Bedford, Indiana" would merit a pizzeria a Wikipedia article? Again, a very poor, weak claim for notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break II[edit]

Delete per WikiProject Wine. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Wine is not a guideline or policy - just the opinion of the editors who represent their personal opinions above. Per WP:OWN, this project has no special standing in making editorial decisions. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By dropping in WP:OWN, such a comment suggests one urgently needs to revisit the text and redigest what is being stated. DoriSmith may well be aware WikiProject Wine is not a policy but a group of people who have seen similar articles through wine related AFDs over time, and argued on a consistent basis of source availability. Compare this AFD which the colonel did not "patrol". MURGH ^disc. 08:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing this other example for comparison. The sources in that case do not seem significantly different in quality to what we have here. I see no sense in keeping one article but not the other as this would be an absurd inconsistency. We are not a Best of or Greatest Hits but a comprehensive encyclopedia and so should cover these topics in a thorough way. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transparancy is in everyone's interest. But although there are some similarities in the press attention these winieries receive from their hometown newspapers, Jewell Towne (at this point representing a minimum threshold of notability) is covered by RS well beyond the sort of "honorable mention" of the NYT you cite, and in this context tasting notes and "yellow pages" is insufficient to make up the needed references. Please look more deeply into the differences. MURGH ^disc. 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. No one is claiming ownership but simply pointing out the fact that the editors who are constantly knee deep involved in wine issues and articles, are overwhelming agreeing that in the grand scheme of things this winery is not notable. We're not claiming ownership but rather calling a WP:DUCK, a duck. We've seen countless examples of both notable and non-notable wine topics in our time editing Wikipedia so when every single WP:WINE member who has commented on this AfD has recommended delete (for numerous valid reasons) on this wine article, that should be a red-flag that maybe this article you are fighting so hard far is not truly notable? Again, we don't care about this weird fight of "inclusionists vs deletionists" and the wine project is certainly not bring these articles up for AfD because we are so-called "deletionist". Rather, we are looking at this purely from an angle of Wikipedia's policies and what is best for the encyclopedia. This article shouldn't be "saved" just to score an inclusionist point for the WP:ARS but rather it should be objectively evaluated. Five wine project members have objectively evaluated this article based on Wikipedia's policies and on our knowledge and experience with dealing with wine subjects and we have all found this article sincerely lacking in tangible claims for notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything but hand-waving and arguments from authority to justify deletion of one article but retention of the other and so remain quite unconvinced. The article in question has adequate sources which, between them, tell us enough to support a modest article. Further research may well turn up more sources like the NYT source which no-one knew about until I found it. In this way the encyclopedia is improved and its coverage of wine deepened. Deletion of the article would do nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop right there. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimminate collection of information. Coverage of wine is NOT "deepened" by including promotional puff pieces about every winery in existence, which is essentially what's going on with this article. Deletion of this article and others like it would certainly improve the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But sir, these sources such as your NYT honourable mention is not sufficient as in-depth coverage of this subject. I would consider myself an inclusionist, and at this point I recommend that this article be removed from the WP fold and be userfied until the appropriate sources appear (which may well eventually happen). MURGH ^disc. 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is appealing to authority. Only common sense. If a person has never seen a duck, do you think they would have an easy time calling a duck, a WP:DUCK? They may think the animal has unusual feathers or makes weird noises but they probably would have trouble putting their finger on exactly what it is. When it comes to wine articles, the Wine Project has seen a lot of "ducks" and dealt with a lot of notable wine subjects as well as a lot of non-notable wine subject. As every wine project member who has taken the time to comment on this AfD has noted....this "duck" doesn't quack and fails in establishing any kind of notability. It is essentially only notable for "existing" which according to Wikipedia policies is not enough. A winery doesn't get a free pass on WP:CORP by the grand virtue of simply being a winery. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misrepresent the case. Multiple good sources have been presented which go beyond simple existence and multiple editors find these to be quite satisfactory. There is no case for deletion - not the slightest. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia policies like WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV, we are certainly lacking in "multiple good sources" here. If this was an artisan baker, a garage band, a bed and breakfast, a corner street hot dog vendor, a neighborhood pharmacist or a local mom & pop restaurant these meager travel guides, casual, trivial, mentions and isolated regional general interest pieces sources would fail miserably in establish notability. Why again are we giving a winery a free pass on notability that we don't extend to other businesses? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is not a notable vineyard, and all the sources are primary sources / press releases. I LOL at anyone who cites the vineyard as "Award Winning" -- wine awards are quite literally a dime a dozen. Walk down any grocery store liquor aisle and you will see what I mean. JBsupreme (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this large feature story [45] carried by the Associated Press and a major metropolitan paper in North Carolina (the vineyard is in Virginia, so I'm not sure how papers in different states qualify as local, but I'll leave it to the deletionists to explain) the vineyard is also featured as one of seven in Fodor's guide to Virginia and Maryland (there are more than 50 vintners in Virginia and its a major industry in the state so to be featured in that way says something), is featured in East Coast wineries: a complete guide from Maine to Virginia By Carlo DeVito where it's noted that "Valhalla Vineyards make some of the best red wines on the entire east coast." There are oodles more sources on google news and google books. I'm not sure why this particular producer is being targeted by members of the wine project, but it clearly meets the general notability guideline and wp:corp. And I voted weak delete on the other winery mentioned in this discussion, so I have no problem deleting ones that aren't covered substantially in independent reliable souces. But this fourteen year old winery that has a 2,000 square foot cave is a major and notable producer that clearly merits inclusion. I originally said "weakly" notable, before I went looking into the other sources available online and there are many, they aren't just local, and the coverage is substantial. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It disappointing if the distinct differences aren't apparent. In the Valhalla case there is: a few stories in the devoted local newspaper Roanoke Times, a few paragraphs in one Wine Spectator piece, a sentence containing the word "honor" in the New York Times and the AP interest story which was for whatever reasons picked up by Wilmington Morning Star in 98, before they were even able to sell wine. The tasting notes and local competition accolades are entirely moot. That they have since been included in 2 tourist guides covering eastern seaboard wine routes is not cause for celebration, merely directory participation. Any major wine region has scores of such books, and by this threshold, thousands of wine producers globally have such considerably stronger media portfolios. Wikipedia must not become a wine-tour directory, and as such can't blindly assign wine-tour guides as WP:RS. MURGH ^disc. 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a strawman and ad hominem to call the Wine Project members "deletionists" and targeting this producer just because we are overwhelming agreeing that this winery is not notable. If someone nominated a truly notable wine subject, we would be just as "inclusionist" as anyone else trying to establish it's notability. Truth be told, we certainly don't always agree on things as even a casual glance at the WT:WINE archives would prove. It just happens in this case, people who actively work with wine related subjects can clearly see how lacking in notability this winery is. Of the tens of thousands of wineries in this world, Valhalla Vineyards is not one of the scare few that are truly notable. They just aren't. There is no valid, encyclopedic or Wikipedia policy related reason to defend it outside of scoring so called "inclusionist victory". We should be evaluating this article on its merits not as a "symbolic point scoring" endeavor between inclusionists and deletionist. Now about those merits...

North Carolina/Virginia certainly fall into the "regional sphere" of local with them giving WP:UNDUE weight to topics of regional interest. Up here in the Pacific Northwest papers in Oregon, Washington and Idaho regularly cover local "regional" topics with the same undue weight. But regardless this "large feature story" is talking about converting a peach orchard into a winery. As I asked before (and the "keep" voters continually fail to address) how is this any different than a mom & pop converting an old building into a restaurant? In the wine world, land that has been used for orchards or other uses are converted all the time. How is this notable? Is it the cave? That is not even remotely notable in the wine world and has been done for thousands of years and is still widely practiced in places like Champagne. It is like saying a druggist is notable for being one of the few druggists in a particular state to go back to using mortar and pestle. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our guideline explains that notability is not fame, importance, being unusual or special. It is defined solely by having been noted or noticed in print. It does not matter if the topic is quite ordinary and average - it is covered then it is notable. But in this case, the winery is not ordinary or average - it has coverage which gives it good accolades and distinction. And so our cup is full. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that nearly every possible person, place, product or idea has been noticed in print obviously our guideline requires a tad more than that quaint oversimplification. In fact, it does. It's called significant coverage WP:SIGCOV which states "Significant coverage" means that sources [note the plural] address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." One isolated article talking about an orchard field being converted into a winery, does not equate to significant coverage anymore than a news article about an old building being converted into a new pizza parlor does. At best this is WP:ONEVENT, which is obviously not a reason to keep an article. One isolated article alone talking about a winery using a common wine cave for storage does not equate to significant coverage anymore than a local news article about the neighborhood druggist giving personal, old fashion care with his mortar and pestle. Casual, trivial mentions in travel pieces and travel guides does not equate to significant coverage any more than a local bed and breakfast inn being mentioned in general interest pieces about the region. The first time I was mentioned "in print" was when I won a regional science fair in the 3rd grade. I received a lovely one paragraph write up in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Chicago Tribune, Kansas City Star and a few other smaller papers. But I assure you, being "noticed in print" doesn't qualify me for a Wikipedia article. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casual mentions in travel guides are poor claims of notability and wouldn't fly in any other article. We are not WikiTravel. Are travel guides used to establish notability of Bed and Breakfast inns or corner street hot dog carts? There are the "oodles" of google books hits in travel guides for all of those too. Why should wineries get a free pass with such a poor claim of notability? How is this winery different than a B&B with the same kind of meager coverage? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I tend to agree with ChildofMidnight's rationale. I do understand why articles like this drive Agne and some others crazy, but when there is sufficient sourcing to write the article, I don't see the benefit of deletion. The WP:WINERY proposal notes, "the abundance of 'non-trivial and reliable published works' in the world of wine presents presents a challenge for determining whether a particular wine business warrants an article in Wikipedia, because this requirement could be "technically" met by many non-notable wineries. Therefore, Wikipedia should include articles on only those wine businesses with some substantial degree of notability and contribution to the wine world." I fear implementing this uniformly and successfully (such that wikipedia only addresses an agreed-upon upper echelon of wineries) would probably require a level of general editor expertise that Wikipedia will never have.--Milowent (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a point of contention, because the sourcing 'isn't sufficient for writing a good encyclopedic article. Local paper writeups and 2 tourist guides doesn't amount to wide reliable coverage and does deep damage to the kind of level we need when limiting the scope of WP coverage. There is wine made in every 50 US state, and most countries on earth between 30 and 50 degrees latitude, and the number of wine-producing entities that could easily match this sort of sparse source coverage is mind-boggling. I have neighbours who grow vines to our local paper's amusement that would then fulfill criteria for a WP article. Avoiding that is the benefit of deletion. A far cry from upper echelon exclusivity. MURGH ^disc. 23:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this so much more taxing on the competence of general editors than establishing the notability of, say, biographies of physicists and molecular biologists, where few editors would understand their research papers but still absolutely not each and every Ph.D. in the world would be considered notable? By the "standards" (if that is the term to use) that the "keep" voters apply in this case, a minimum of tens of thousands of wineries (and that's a low count - it could well be over 100,000) in the world would be considered "notable". At least if you think that the same criteria should apply outside the U.S. and be applied to sources published in other languages than English. Tomas e (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because 99% of wikipedia editors don't give a crap about molecular biologists, but they do drink wine.--Milowent (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are another "keep voter" advocating that wineries get a free pass on notability that Wikipedia would not extend to other topics? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just the opposite actually. I am arguing that wineries are being treated the same as other topics (as you know, I'm familiar with the debate over lists of wineries and have come around to understanding why having directories of wineries in a page is not a good idea). Here, however, there are arguments being made that wineries shouldn't be treated the same as other topics, because, well, they get too much citable coverage and that coverage doesn't really mean they are notable.--Milowent (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not grade on a curve. In other words, there is no set maximum number of articles that we will accept for a given topic area. Instead we have a threshold of acceptability and, if an article passes that threshold, it is acceptable. As a consequence we have 3 million articles and counting - many thousands of athletes, politicians, places, asteroids, etc. See Wikipedia is not paper. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colonel, I recommend WP:NOT for close reading, such as "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Including tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of non-notable wineries is exactly that. Tomas e (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Slippery slope which explains the fallacious nature of your rhetoric. We are not discussing tens of thousands of articles here, just one. The sources available are adequate to support this per our notability norms and that's that. If we should have many more related articles appearing then we can cross that bridge when we come to it; either accepting the situation or merging the content as appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article appears to meet general notability guideline as it has significant coverage in reliable sources, that are independent of the winery. Eldumpo (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets WP:N today with some reliable sources although its content could be improved. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Nancy ^talk 09:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimmelman’s Guillotine[edit]

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

Bizarre expression that is not confirmed via Google searches. Runs afoul of WP:NEO. Warrah (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nirgendwo (Moved by Deon: THIS ENTRY IS ENTIRELY FALSE AND MALICIOUS AND SHOULD BE INSTANTLY REMOVED. KIMMELMAN NEVER WROTE ANY SUCH THING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirgendwo (talk • contribs) 07:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero non-WP search results, NN/NEO — Deon ^talk 10:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this _____. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete I don't see anything to suggest the content is appropriate or encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as no content/attack page. Article tagged. — æk ^Talk 05:02, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dipping (Dip Snapping)[edit]

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

NN neologism. Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited it down to fit with what is acceptable it seems. It explains the neologism a bit more than UD. I don't know if it is enough for it to stay though. Do as you will. PS: By a simple Google search, it seems a Mr. Sir Arthur Williams needs a life outside his mother's basement. ;3 Mashew (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not consider Urban Dictionary entries to constitute reliable sources, needed to establish notability. Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search results such as [46] obviously aren't usable sources, either. Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no better source than Urban Dictionary can be found. JIP | Talk 07:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — Deon ^talk
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and nominator. Can always be reintroduced later if evidence of notability becomes available. -- The Anome (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this is a notable term; as noted, above, additional sources would be required, and I'm not finding any. The concept of tapping the Dip Canister (as this gesture imitates) might have a place in the Dipping tobacco article, but this term is not a useful redirect - so, delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original tagger. Fails WP:NEO. E Wing (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEO; it's possible that it might merit inclusion in the future, but due to WP:CRYSTAL, that will be for us to decide when/if it gets to that point. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus has leaned towards keep since references were added - regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Monkey King's Daughter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Monkey King's Daughter

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

Article about a book that does not receive significant coverage to have an article included in the encyclopedia. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 02:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability ie. substantial coverage in reliable independent sources to meet Wikipedia guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence from third-party sources the author, let alone series, is notability. --EEMIV (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough. I have cleaned up the article a little. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some refs. Discussed, albiet brifly, in multiple independant reliable sources. DES ^(talk) 22:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is somewhat borderline but I am leaning towards keep with the new sources added. JBsupreme (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the added refs in the article now would persuade me to keep. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Joomla. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrik (open source)[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) 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joomla. Seems a notable enough extension to mention there. Pcap ping 03:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Fabrik is one of the more popular Joomla extensions, I don't believe it meets general notability guidelines. FWIW, when I nominated Jquarks for deletion I found and tagged a number of other Joomla extensions into the category Joomla extensions, which should make it easy to identify other likely AfD candidates. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why the notable (in the common sense of the word) extentions souldn't be briefly described in the Joomla! article. It would make it more informative (it's pretty short right now), and the information is wouldn't be WP:UNDUE there as long as Joomla books also mention/discuss those extensions. WP:N does not govern article contents; see also WP:PRESERVE. Pcap ping 07:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good idea. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not independently notable. This does not preclude sourced content being written in the Joomla article. Miami33139 (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joomla. It is worth mentioning in the article. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Prees[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any in-depth coverage for the band, either. This does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 02:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find significant coverage of the band. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 18:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've seen nothing to indicate that this band passes WP:BAND. Therefore, I move for deletion. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta Golf[edit]

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

The article does attempt to establish notability, but fails to do so - relationships with people do not confer notability, so neither does the use of a product. Quantumobserver (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A search returns no news coverage or anything implying notability. And the fame of the supposed "backers" is irrelevant because notability cannot be inherited. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found only one possible source, but it appears to be more of a passing mention (rather than in-depth coverage). Thus, I don't feel that it merits inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Relist at Proposed mergers. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC One 'Balloon' idents[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/BBC One 'Balloon' idents

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

Moved from 27th December, to sit with the rest of the set Jheald (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article could be condensed into a paragraph within BBC One. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a family of these, what do you want to do with History of BBC television idents and the other idents? Polarpanda (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed the articles separately so they can each be judged on their own merits. I think History of BBC television idents should stay and have content added to it. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as separate article, don't merge. For similar reasons to those already expressed in existing discussions at Talk:History of BBC television idents, if anything a more natural merge target, where consensus has already rejected merger. The content in this article is of value, and should not be lost to Wikipedia. The subject deserves (and gets) a short summary in BBC One and in History of BBC television idents, but the more complete discussion we currently give sits better in its own article. Jheald (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:BBC notified of this and immediately following discussions. Jheald (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in History of BBC television idents. This isn't about deleting content but creating more of a relevant summary. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 18:50, 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.

BBC Two 1991-2001 idents[edit]

The result was Relist at Proposed mergers. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The content of this article could be condensed into the BBC Two and History of BBC television idents articles. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then withdraw your nomination, be bold and do so. AfD is not the venue to petition for content merges. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as separate article, don't merge. For similar reasons to those already expressed in existing discussions at Talk:History of BBC television idents, if anything a more natural merge target, where consensus has already rejected merger. The content in this article is of value, and should not be lost to Wikipedia. The subject deserves (and gets) a short summary in BBC Two and in History of BBC television idents, but the more complete discussion we currently give sits better in its own article. Jheald (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in History of BBC television idents. This isn't about deleting content but creating more of a relevant summary. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want the content deleted then withdraw this (and the other) nomination(s) and go ahead and merge the material. If there is opposition to it on the article space then work it out on the relevant article's discussion pages. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

BBC One 'Circle' idents[edit]

The result was Relist at Proposed mergers. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/BBC One 'Circle' idents

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

The content of this article could be condensed into the BBC One article. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then withdraw your nomination, be bold and do so. AfD is not the venue to petition for content merges. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as separate article, don't merge. Similar to existing discussions at Talk:History of BBC television idents, if anything a more natural merge target, where consensus has already rejected merger. The content in this article is of value, and should not be lost to Wikipedia. The subject deserves (and gets) a short summary in BBC One and in History of BBC television idents, but the more complete discussion we currently give sits better in its own article. Jheald (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in History of BBC television idents. This isn't about deleting content but creating more of a relevant summary. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 18:51, 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 Relist at Proposed mergers. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/BBC One 'Rhythm & Movement' idents

BBC One 'Rhythm & Movement' idents[edit]

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

The content of this article could be condensed into the presentation section of BBC One and the section within History of BBC television idents. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then withdraw your nomination, be bold and do so. AfD is not the venue to petition for content merges. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as separate article, don't merge. For similar reasons to those expressed in existing discussions at Talk:History of BBC television idents, if anything a more natural merge target, where consensus has already rejected merger. The content in this article is of value, and should not be lost to Wikipedia. The subject deserves (and gets) a short summary in BBC One and in History of BBC television idents, but the more complete discussion we currently give sits better in its own article. Jheald (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in History of BBC television idents. This isn't about deleting content but creating more of a relevant summary. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 18:51, 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, rename and clean up Wikiwoohoo (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITV television presentation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated for deletion a year ago and kept to be cleaned up. It is currently tagged for improper use of copyrighted material and to be rewritten. The content could quite easily be condensed into the articles for each of the channels mentioned. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up in current place, do not delete, do not merge. The ITV channels are a family of channels, owned as such and branded as such. It therefore makes good sense to treat the common brand presentation together in one place. The article should also review the earlier history of ITV network and regional branding. The article does need consolidation, streamlining and rewriting; but there is valuable material and a valid encyclopedic topic here, so the article should be cleaned up in place, and not deleted. Jheald (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but scrutinise for verifiability of all the statements, and delete anything not included in reliable sources. If the leftover encyclopaedic information doesn't constitute a full article, consider a merge then. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into separate ITV channel articles.. The article was created as an ITV copy of History of BBC television idents but is in a mess and will probably be difficult to improve on. ITV 3 and 4 don't have big histories to draw upon for content so the article might as well be deleted. Keep the useful content of course. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. ITV has a rich history of regional and network branding - going back to the 1950s - and there is definitely room for an article to review it, as a network. Jheald (talk) 19:09, 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 Userfied to User:Wikidemon/Climategate scandal to give non-admins access to the page and see how it is a blatant POV fork of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident: just put the two pages next to each other. Early close to minimise drama resulting from blatant WP:GAMEing. Rd232 ^talk 10:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC) PS Appropriate followup to issues of titling and article content/focus of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident would be at... drum roll... Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Possibly using appropriate dispute resolution, most obviously Request for Comments. Rd232 ^talk 11:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climategate scandal[edit]

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

Content fork or POV fork (not sure which) of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. In reliable sources the "Climategate" moniker is identical to the topic of the latter Wikipedia article and has no independent existence. Further, the term "scandal" is inherently POV until shown otherwise by a strong consensus of reliable sources (such as the Teapot Dome scandal). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been moved from Climategate scandal to Climategate controversy.

Note - from article creator. "Climategate" is without question a notable topic that deserves encyclopedic treatment. Does ayone dispute that? This is not intended as a fork at all, but routine organization of a large subject matter consisting of a series of related events into multiple sub-topics that cannot readily be shoehorned into a single article. The current article by its title, and much discussion on the talk page, is about the hacking incident that is but one of several aspects of the affair. There has been much debate and edit warring there so it is hard to figure out where consensus will come to rest, but the current status quo for that article is that it has that limited focus. There has been a lot of discussion and widespread approval there that information about the creation and playing out of the scandal does not belong there, and should instead be treated in its own article. Yet that article has become something of a portmanteau, with long sections talking about the "hacking" (i.e. unauthorized access and republication of private electronic files from a university computer), the scandal (as promoted and played out in the blogosphere, popular press, political arena, scientific community), the underlying actions of the scientists themselves, and the progress of climate change theory and research thereon. Budding one article into two siblings when it gets too unruly is not a "fork" at all, it is simply good organization. As for the title, there was some discussion at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, and there seemed to be a preference for appending "Scandal". I have no particular preference. Whether we call it a scandal, controversy, incident, or just leave the descriptor off is a question for the editors to decide, but it does not affect the notability of the subject. Keeping things NPOV is an ongoing responsibility of editors, no reason to avoid dealing with a controversial topic. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident for now. This is basically a duplicate. --TS 00:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think Wikidemon is probably correct in that there should be a page for the public controversy (as opposed to a controversy about the science) that has since ensued. This is mostly because there are some strong feelings at the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article in favor of focusing the article on the hacking incident as opposed to the ensuing controversy. Separating the two articles would help to clarify each and I think would do a lot of good. Finally, as the name can always and probably should be changed (as I indicated on the talk page prior to the AfD), the debate here should be restricted to the content / direction of the page. jheiv (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One mild disagreement: there's clearly a scientific controversy that grew fron this as well as a public controversy. There is, for example, increasing evidence of collusion manipulating peer-review to favor one theory over another, which is specifically a scientific controversy, as the man on the street has little understanding of what peer review even is. — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JHeiv above may have a point, but this is not the way to achieve a separate controversy page. This page should clearly be a redirect to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Oren0 (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As this article develops, it's clear that if this AfD ends in a redirect, content should be merged from this article. Oren0 (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is disingenuous to argue on the one hand that Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is NOT appropriately named Climategate scandal, and then here argue that such an article is nothing more than a content fork for that same article. There are those that argue that the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is NOT about Climategate and is NOT about the scandal at all. Given this a separate article focused on the scandalous aspects of the precipitating incident described at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident makes a lot of sense. --GoRight (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GoRight. The existing Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is a mess, starting with the misleading title. At least this one is starting with what people actually call the affair. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - disgraceful example of a POV fork with a completely non-neutral title. Legitimacy of "Climategate" terminology is in question, but the use of "scandal" is shocking. Reviewing administrator should be aware that this should not be decided by !votes, because climate skeptics keen to push their non-neutral POV will doubtless be herded by their echo chamber into this AfD in order to add legitimacy to the "scandal" fantasy. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote earlier, please try to avoid discussing the article title, which I think everyone agrees could be chosen differently, but rather the content / direction of the article. Other than the title, could you enumerate your disagreements with the content / direction of the article? jheiv (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already did so, describing it as a "disgraceful example of a POV fork". It's essentially covering the same ground as Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, only focusing on the negative aspects of the controversy arising from the incident. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is narrowly focused on the hacking. The hacking itself is hardly notable, so an article which concentrates on the controversy is needed. This is not a POV fork, as multiple attempts to add public controversy angle to the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article were shot down by the very same editors that are arguing for deletion now. For example, TS wrote on the talk page, I think it's probably not encyclopedic to use the term [Climategate], and I've removed it. Given this position, his suggestion above to redirect the Climategate scandal to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is a bit puzzling. Dimawik (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for pointing that out Dimawik. So there is a separate article about the email leaks/hacking. I was confused because at first a climategate search took me to an article entitled Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident which didn't even cover the climategate topic. As this article covers that topic and the other one doesn't then there is no valid reason to delete it. It isn't biased to call it a scandal because it was widely reported and led to the resignation of Phil Jones, rocked the Australian parliament, was mentioned at the UN by the chairman of the IPCC and the Saudi government (who called for an investigation)and is now being investigated by the USA's congress.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.59.18 (talk • contribs)
For the time being I've moved the article to Climategate POV fork for reasons that must be obvious. The use of the term "scandal" in the title of an article about this event contravenes our most fundamental policy, Neutral point of view. --TS 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was just quickly moved back to Climategate scandal -- maybe there could be a quick resolution on the talk page? jheiv (talk)

Well, restoring this POV fork as a redirect to the parent article would be the most obvious resolution. --TS 02:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Climategate is a parent article WRT hacking incident. Dimawik (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article called "Climategate", and unless Wikipedia changes its rules on the neutral point of view there probably never will be. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the article is pretty aggressive given that there's an active discussion here with a (very early tentative) majority of good faith "keep" opinions that specifically address the "POV fork" issue. That is more or less an early snow close, and really ought not to be done in arguable cases. I chose Climategate scandal rather than simply Climategate, because of opinions expressed on the talk page of the hacking article that "scandal" is the proper way to title "-gate" controversies. I was trying to be less controversial, not more. Other titles are just fine to, such as just plain "Climategate". Adding "POV fork" to an article title does not seem very serious. Surely you must know that using an article title to disparage the merits of the article is more than a bit soap-boxy and unencyclopedic. Might as well move it to "Somebody's dumb idea for an article about Climategate". - Wikidemon (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there were a majority of !votes for "keep", that should have little bearing on the result of this discussion. There is no way an article entitled "Climategate scandal" could possibly survive scrutiny with anyone remotely familiar with WP:NPOV. Clearly the closing admin will have no choice but to insist on deletion. There is nothing to salvage, since anything neutral has apparently been lifted more or less wholesale from the neutral article. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Watergate scandal and Lewinsky scandal thrive in Wikipedia. There is no POV in calling a widely publicized allegation a scandal. This is actually a dictionary definition. Dimawik (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er... those are actual scandals. There is NO evidence that there is anything scandalous about the data stolen from the CRU, unless you are including the scandalous behavior of climate change deniers, conservative bloggers and energy industry lobbyists trying to make more of the matter than it really is. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Scjessey, you do seem a trifle dogmatic on this subject. Give it a break? These are your personal (and debatable) opinions, y'know.... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree. The skeptics are outnumbered in the real world by several thousands to one, and it is only by manipulation of the press and agenda-driven editing on Wikipedia that this sort of garbage makes headlines in the first place. You're backing the wrong horse in this race, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey, you seem to be confused a bit. In order to say that the event should be called Climategate and the hacking is actualy a small and unimportant part of it, one does not need necessarily to be a skeptic. Similarly, an allegation does not need to be true in order to be called a scandal, it just needs to be widely known. Majority of population that can read does not have an agenda, but IMO resent a spade being called by some other name. Dimawik (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Allegations of a scandal are just that: allegations. They are not scandals. Cs32en 06:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP disagrees: A scandal is a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages the reputation of an institution, individual or creed. A scandal may be based on true or false allegations or a mixture of both. Dimawik (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting that sentence. A scandal is either (1) actual scandalous behaviour (2) allegations about alleged scandalous behavior. If it refers to (2), the term "scandal" refers to the allegations, not to the (alleged) behaviour. Now, we might write an article about the (scandalous) allegations, but then the focus of the article would not be the CRU scientist at all, which is probably not what you would want. I've alerted the editors at Scandal about the possible misinterpretation of the article. Cs32en 08:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is you who is mistaken: the majority of the definitions you quote in the talk page do not require the allegations to be truthful. Scandals definoitely can (and did) involve mis-information. Therefore, the use of the word "scandal" is neutral, IMO. Dimawik (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to distiguish between the allegations and the content of the allegations. The article is supposed to cover the content of the allegations. The allegations themselves, whether true or not, may constitute a section of the article. Cs32en 09:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: the UEA itself recognises two separate issues. The theft/leak of the e-mails. This it reported to the police. And the conduct of its scientists exposed as a consequence. This they are investigating. Note, ~~Steve~~Phil Jones has stepped aside not because of the theft but because of questions over his conduct. Watergate is not about the breaking into a hotel room, but the behaviour of Nixon thus exposed, as a consequence. Two issues, two articles. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is Steve Jones? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a content fork, not a POV fork. This section was already pretty big in the original article and will continue to get bigger. Creating a sub-article is simply a way of managing the size of the content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This is a more detailed version of Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Reactions_to_the_incident which is justifiable. Climategate though is a media buzz word with inherent POV. Keep and rename to CRU hacking public reaction or the such. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is essentially a POV fork of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident covering substantially the same subject - concerns regarding the correct title and the relative weight given to various reactions to the incident do need to be resolved there, despite the heated nature of the dispute :) Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV fork. Guettarda (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the idea to clarify both articles in which case this would not be a fork? jhe_iv (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title of the article clearly signals that it is a POV fork. Bertport (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out earlier, please ignore the title but rather focus on the content and direction. With that said, do you still have objections? jhe_iv (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sir Arthus Williams and others. Cs32en 05:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This article has high value content, and should be kept as a standalone article. Jong-C (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part is "high value", and why should it be kept as a standalone article when its very existence violates Wikipedia's policy on neutrality? -- Scjessey (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The media reports it as a scandal. We rely on reliable sources here, not opinion. Jong-C (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources using the word "scandal"? Let's see some then. They would need to be used by a preponderance of reliable sources, of course. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just note that "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is not used by any sources outside of the Wikipedia, but you have argued that it is a good name for another article. You cannot defend both of these positions simultaneously. Dimawik (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I have not. I hate that title and have argued against it consistently. I prefer "Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy" because I'm actually one of the editors who wants to include more of the post-theft controversy into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that "Climatic Research Unit data theft controversy" fares any better in the preponderance of the reliable sources. Other than in WP, Climategate is the word. Some editors tried to limit the scope of the article, now this (parent) article fills the void :-) Dimawik (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note sources using term "scandal" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climategate_scandal Jong-C (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "sources" are opinions from climate skeptics, not reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, given your vehemence and your apparent argument that "climate skeptics" are, ipso facto, not reliable sources, one might wonder if you're primarily advocating a POV here. In any case, it's certainly a fact that there's a scientific controversy and dispute here with rather more scientific basis than, say [Intelligent Design] — which does have an article. — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This editorial, published by the Washington Times, a reliable source reporting on how the majority of reliable sources are covering the issue, is quite instructive. Of course, the Washington Times is arguing the truth here, which is not what we are supposed to do. Cs32en 06:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an opinion piece, of course, and no author's name is given. It is also coming from a conservatively-biased organ of Sun Myung Moon. This is certainly not the gold standard of sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"no author's name is given" - Which, of course, makes it the official editorial position of the newspaper itself. --GoRight (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...which is generally conservative-leaning, who are in turn generally skeptical of AGW (or prefer to ignore the evidence). -- Scjessey (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You claim to know the positions of the members of the editorial board of the newspaper on AGW. Do you have some evidence to support your claim? (No, you hand waving above is NOT evidence.) Regardless, what is the point? It is still the editorial position of a widely respected media source. --GoRight (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm aware of the general political orientation of the Washington Times. So, from my personal point of view, it is not arguing the truth, but it's arguing falsehood ;-) Yet, an account of the way reliable sources are reporting on the issue is helpful, and if we have a climate sceptic acknowledging that the media generally does not follow his preferred way of seeing the issue, that can contribute to our overall assessment on the preponderance of media reports on the subject. There is no author's name given because it's an editorial that expresses, or is supposed to express, the viewpoint of the editorial board or the publisher. Cs32en 07:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious POV fork. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a pov fork and I do not doubt an underhanded attempt to bury/hide the information in the other article by biased users who couldn't get the facts they didn't like removed from said article. Even it if wasn't a dishonest attempt at hiding the facts, it's still a pov fork and not allowed. This vote could turn out 1000 to 1 for keep and it would still be necessary to delete per policy.Farsight001 (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Even it if wasn't a dishonest attempt at hiding the facts" - You actually have that backwards, the AfD is the attempt to hide facts, not the other way around. --GoRight (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there were any actual facts in the scandal article that aren't already in the hacking incident article and aren't completely pointless, I'd I agree with you. But again, either way, it's a pov fork and should be deleted as such without question.Farsight001 (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to clarify both articles. If you've been involved in the CRU Hacking incident page you'd realize that there are strong opinions that the page should be restricted to the hacking incident. That seems fine to me, and as a result, the creation of this page also seemed fine, as a place for the fall out. The facts that are in the hacking incident that belong in the fall out page would be here and any ones that aren't directly involved in the hacking incident should be removed from the CRU hacking incident page. 'Know what I mean? jhe_iv (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to get the idea ;-) You are saying the editors at the other article do not want to cover the substance of the allegations against the climate researchers. At the same time, you actually prefer that they get their (alleged) way, because that would allow the content to be covered in ~~"your" article, preferably with a title that contains the word "scandal"~~ the Climategate scandal article. However, the article Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article actually covers the substance of the allegations, the content of the e-mails from climate researchers, reactions to those e-mails etc. (The title of that article might not be perfect, and a discussion on the title of that article might be the best way to adress existing concerns.) Cs32en 09:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close. I actually don't want scandal in the title as I've noted elsewhere on here and more poignantly on Talk:Climategate scandal. Also, I don't take ownership of the article -- I really only have made two or three copy edits when it first debuted on the Wikipedia scene. Lastly, while the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident page does contain some of the "fallout" or reaction, there have been many more things that have been removed (although the removal has been less frequent as time has passed) that don't violate policies but "aren't what the article is about". I really don't want the Climategate scandal page to turn into propoganda or one huge policy violation, but rather an avenue to clarify the point of both articles. Are we assuming good faith? jhe_iv (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing this part of my comment. Your reference to the "strong feelings" of editors, rather than to the actual content of the article Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, however, still looks to me as being an attempt to push the reader's mind in a certain direction, without making a statement that could be proven to be factually wrong. Cs32en 09:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a While i.e. Keep for now. Both articles contain relevant, and probably irrelevant, information. There is a risk that by deleting one, some useful things are lost, that should not be. I feel strongly that the titles should be the starting point. "Climategate" is valid because it has been so widely used; "scandal" most certainly is not. Also, the emails were leaked but no one yet knows whether the system was hacked or whether they were leaked by someone who had legitimate access to them. In the fullness of time, I'm sure there will need to be two (or probably more) articles because of the number of issues raised and the sheer length of the text. A split between the release of the emails themselves and the wider consequences seems reasonable at this stage and I think that is what the two current articles are trying to achieve, if poorly at present. Although "sceptics" may be introducing POV, there are concerns that the other side has appeared to do the same. I think we should err on the side of not removing anything (including the information contained in the fact that there are two articles) so as not to add give credence to the argument that Wikipedia is being manipulated. The important thing seems to me that, if some think there is a need for two articles, their purposes should be clearly stated and bit by bit they should be edited to meet those purposes. If this proves impossible, then merge them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmcgrove (talk • contribs) 08:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I don't agree with the title I think the idea of the page is what is important. The editors at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident have repeatedly pronounced that that article is about the hacking incident and have been committed to removing material that falls outside the scope of the hacking incident. As a result, that article has a very strong focus on the hacking incident that really isn't reflective of the weight it is given in WP:RS. Therefore it makes sense that a page should be devoted to covering the public controversy (as opposed to a controversy about the science) / fall out that since ensued. Its clear that this page should be kept. I also am befuddled with editors who, on one hand, wish to restrict the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident page to the hacking incident yet come here and call this a POV fork. It seems fishy. jhe_iv (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether editors at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident have been "committed to removing material that falls outside the scope of the hacking incident". But if some have been, their attempts have been unsuccessful. The article covers the content of the e-mails, as well as reactions to the content of these e-mails (i.e. not, or not primarily, reactions to the hacking incident). I do not agree with your assertion that this article "has a very strong focus on the hacking incident", and I do not support the conclusions that you draw from that assertion. Cs32en 08:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Here's the background. We already have an article, Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which has been the target of a great deal of POV-pushing and abusive sockpuppetry. There have been numerous arguments to move the article to "Climategate" or "Climategate scandal", all of which have been rejected because such titles would be blatantly POV and are expressly disallowed by policy (for the same reason we don't have "Attorneygate" or "Rathergate"). There have also been numerous attempts to wedge in unsourced and poorly sourced speculation, in violation of the biographies of living persons policy. Wikidemon is one of a clique of right-wing editors who objects to the restrictions of BLP and NPOV. Rather than pursuing dispute resolution, and in full knowledge that what he's doing isn't allowed, he's created this POV fork as a sort of BLP and NPOV-free zone. It's one of the most blatant acts of bad faith I've ever seen on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Climategate. Jaguar's Paw (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this obvious POV/version fork with the title that flies in the face of NPOV and BLP. Neologisms don't make good article titles and calling it a "scandal" pushes one POV. Useful material discussing the "scandal" element can be merged to the article that we already have. Creating a second article just so you can write your own preferred version is not proper. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's possible that the CRU hacking incident page should instead be deleted as not being particularly notable, since the mere hack itself isn't that unusual. If so, some content ought to be merged into this page. (I'd also vote for changing the title of that page to something not using the word "scandal" in order to reduce the POV.) But the topic itself is a good one: the CG files suggest scientific misconduct, and that's independent of how the files were obtained. — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV fork. Given the ongoing debate on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, it is hard for me to escape the conclusion that this page was created in bad faith. Dynablaster (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes your !vote rather lame. assumptions of bad faith are not terribly helpful to the discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It strikes me as incredibly stupid that climategate is not an article, and if "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is it then it is no wonder the neutrality of wikipedia is being called into question. --mark nutley (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a POV-fork. The content is arranged differently here, but is basically the same as the other article. The title is blatant POV ("scandal"). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the news, a blog, news-agregator or a tabloid... We are not here to describe speculation in the media, but to describe facts - which unfortunately at the moment are sparse, since no investigation has yet been concluded. Outside of presenting notable reactions - we will have to await the results of investigations - and we have no deadline (which seems to irk people). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as POV-fork, especially given that its creator claims "The content and sourcing in the new article are a near-complete overlap with those at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎. I can't see any excuse for this. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These articles should cover the same thing, and the CRU email article should drop the heavy handed tone about "theft" and so on. A theft of emails would not be notable; when allegedly scandalous comments are involved, it is. I run a Google search of "climatic research email," and the first article I get is USA today talking about a "controversial" email "leak."[47] I see George Monbiot calling on Phil Jones to resign. I then get a number of articles about Jones stepping down. Whoever says the CRU email article doesn't cover the issues associated with "climategate" should not be editing the article. That doesn't mean we should create this kind of Bizarro version, even if that article is getting so large that it should be forked (which I don't really see that it is). I'm not sure it's properly termed a scandal either, since I don't think that's how most reliable sources are looking at it. The CRU title is fine; if not, then both of these titles should redirect to Climatic Research Unit e-mail incident. The battle-waging on the original article is immensely counterproductive for all involved. Mackan79 (talk) 10:35, 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misbah Ahmed[edit]

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

No indication of notability jheiv (talk) 00:35, 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. Cirt (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Westerberg[edit]

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

Only listing on IMDB is a paid resume posting. Doesn't appear to be notable. Eeekster (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete I don't see any indication of notability that would meet our guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revised to delete since it's already under discussion here and AfD outcomes are more "binding", so to speak. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:58, 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. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Two[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is, however, significant coverage for the company's clothing line and events. - Eastmain (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep some third party coverage [48]. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple references in books published by mainstream publishers: see http://books.google.com/books?lr=&as_brr=0&q=%22Skin+Two+magazine%22 -- The Anome (talk) 16:01, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nebojša Koharović[edit]

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

fails WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being an ambassador does not mean you get an automatic WP article. does not seem to be any significant coverage of doing anything more [49]. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possibly notable as an academic and politician as well. See this page: http://www.mvpei.hr/MVP.asp?pcpid=1610 -- Eastmain (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

does not appear to have held an actual political position. not much on gscholar either so fails WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. _{-- Eastmain (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Weak delete. Thanks for placing this here and notifying, Eastmain. Although I strongly push and promote/create Croatian articles, this entry seems to me not a very good one. Simply being an ambassador is not enough (per nom), I never heard of this person (I know, that is no indication, just though I would throw it in), and I can't seem to find significant reliable coverage. Sources and significance provided I will change my mind. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject was formerly Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Croatian government[50], and his stint as ambassador to Poland attracted media coverage, with these articles being about him:[51][52][53][54]. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

those articles are in Polish so it's hard to determine how in depth the coverage is. but you would expect ambassadors to attend events, meeting, make comments in the media and so on which is part of their job. also it seems he was promoted to ambassador from the "assistant minister" position according to this. I'm not sure if the Assistant Minister means an actual Government elected position or parliamentarian. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Obviously notable. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

on the basis of? please explain why. otherwise WP:ITSNOTABLE. do you speak Polish? did you understand those references supplied by Phil Bridger? or do you speak Croatian and have found sources in Croatian?LibStar (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's a stub so...Red Hurley (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bonnier Corporation. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boating Life[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without significant coverage, it can't be notable. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bonnier Corporation. (I'll take care of the merge part.) Location (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a section in parent company's article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the parent company's article (in fact the two lines already there are more than sufficient). No question of notability of parent company, but an ex-magazine can only be notable if it has left some important legacy on the world - and if had done that there would be secondary sources somewhere out there, but there aren't, so it isn't. --A1octopus (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - if Location is willing to merge it, which seems appropriate, then I am all for it. Actually, I just I'd be all for it if anyone offered to do the actual merging. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JaJuan Johnson[edit]

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

fails WP:ATHLETE. isn't the minimum requirement NBA or equivalent league not NCAA? LibStar (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs some improvement, but looks like he meets the GNG. I see multiple feature stories directly about him. For example [55], [56] & [57].--Cube lurker (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Added those three in roughly.)--Cube lurker (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - notable college player; made all Big-Ten team. That should satisfy the notability requirements. matt91486 (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to suggest that this just be closed keep instead of lasting another week due to the relist. The nomination was good faith, but flawed in that it didn't take into account the WP:GNG. Sources have been added showing that this person meets that general notability guideline. For over a week neither the nominator or anyone else has even opposed this additional sourcing.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per general notability guideline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 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. Please continue merge/redirect discussion on article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fei Comodo[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails all criteria of notability for bands except one (having performed the theme music for a network television program). I propose a merge and redirect to Mighty Moshin' Emo Rangers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per nom. Passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in addition to the TV theme, they appear to have been nominated for a Kerrang! award, which would probably satisfy criterion #8.--Unscented (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Criterion #8 reads: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." I don't think the Kerrang! Award falls into the same category. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not as major as the examples given, but I thought it might qualify because it's run by a major magazine and is apparently fairly well-known in Britain.--Unscented (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like it matters anyway when this article already passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the guidelines at WP:MUSIC], if that is the only claim to notability, then the article should be redirected to the article on the show for whom they recorded. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with WikiDan61 on non-notability criterion. The Kerrang! Award hardly qualifies as a major music award imo. Matttwd (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The band meets criteria 8. Joe Chill (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In what way does the band meet criterion 8? If we do not accept the Kerrang! awards as a major national music award, then the band does not meet that criterion. Please explain with more than just a blanket statement. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The theme song is criteria 8. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I meant criteria 10. Joe Chill (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, but the guideline states that if the theme song is the only claim to notability, then the page should be merged to the show's page, as I recommended in my initial nomination. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and discuss merge/redirect on the articles talk page. The nomination offers no rationale for deletion, and the nominator isnt asking for deletion. This is not the correct forum to discuss merge/redirects. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:49, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edbrowse[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) 15:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some google scholar hits for vulnerabilities (not particularly for this software, just listed together with other software that had the same), but that's about it for WP:SECONDARY coverage. Pcap ping 09:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete.

(Not registered yet 86.203.157.66 (talk))

Delete A link to sourceforge is not establishing notability. Miami33139 (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding enough significant, reliable, 3rd party coverage to merit conclusion, like those above. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blambot[edit]

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

Various claims to notability, and some google news archive hits, but I don't see it passing the WP:GNG Polarpanda (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Blambot fonts are used by hundreds of webcomics, including many of the most read ones, and published comics. You can literally find them everywhere. However, there should be some more sources / examples for that. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The multiple press and book mentions found via the searches listed above seem to me to be enough for WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 18:10, 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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Salmon Associates[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Kurt Salmon Associates. References given are unrelated and do not confer notability of the articles topic. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think Kurt Salmon is notable enough, but I think the article needs to be significantly edited, shortened and better references need to be added. The SPA account is a minor concern in my opinion, as there are no SPAs on this AfD yet. The article has too much self-promotion and needs significant a rewrite, but at its core there is a subject of sufficient notability that could be turned into a useful article. DRosin (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep, but rewrite: The firm is mentioned in a good number of books, but usually just mentioning that they did one or another study. However, it's been around for a good while, so it could sort of scrape by on notability in my opinion. The article itself needs a serious rewrite, though: it has way too much puff. The real useful substance could fit in one paragraph. The list of "notable" associates gives citations that don't come close to establishing notability, so it should just be deleted. --Slashme (talk) 09:50, 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, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:17, 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. No consensus to delete. The discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this closure was challenged on the basis of it being a non-admin closure, I (an administrator) affirm Ron's closure. NW (Talk) 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthven College[edit]

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

There are no independent reliable sources to verify this. As it hasn't come in to existance yet it also appears to be a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Fails notability criteria. Polargeo (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added two newspaper articles as references. All high schools are notable, and the decision to amalgamate the schools appears to be firm. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eastmain. That at least gives more RS for the merger and starting fairly soon so WP:CRYSTAL no longer really a problem. The big problem is that we have an article on Ruthven College and no means of verifying that there will be a college with this name. So could it be merged/incubated in some way until this is verifiable? Polargeo (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I have edited the article in a way that I hope will address those concerns. Please take a look. - Eastmain (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is more accurate but it now looks like original research. I'm still not sure about it as it stands and the name for the secondary school pre merger is not Ruthven at all but Lakeside Secondary College. We simply don't know if Ruthven College is even a proposed name for this new school. Polargeo (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually looks like the site of the merger will be the Merriland College site so will this be called Merriland College? Maybe if Merriland College is notable the best option would be to start that page and put the merger info on it and delete this page because it gets no google search hits except for Iowa, US so it would be a confusing redirect. Polargeo (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is clear that this merger is going ahead and it will produce a particularly large school. In any case, it makes no sense to delete the page only to recreate it less than a week later. TerriersFan (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The merger will occur tomorrow, before the end of this AfD. Because the merger will certainly occur, there is no need reason to delete this article. The sources added by Eastmain provide enough verification for the merger. Cunard (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but none of the sources show that the college will be called Ruthven College. In fact it is most likely that it will not. This is completely unverifiable. It looks like they will all remain at their present sites for a while anyway carrying on with their present names. It is not as if there is going to be an actual site merge of the schools tomorrow along with a new name, the merge is just an administrative step. It seems we are desperately trying to be one step ahead on wikipedia and this is where we can end up with incorrect articles and false information. Polargeo (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Merrilands College and am open to merging the information in Ruthven College to that article as you suggested above. When the schools are finally merged and when we know what the new name will be, the content can be moved to an article with that title. Will that solve this quandary? Cunard (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should do. Sorry I have been very busy over Christmas so have not had much time to do this. I think it should not remain as a redirect though because it only gets google hits for Iowa, USA and no google hits at all for this place. So it would be helpful if on closing this could be deleted. Polargeo (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not to merge this information now and delete the Ruthven College article. You have done a good job on the Merrilands College. Polargeo (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Perhaps this article can be incubated to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Ruthven College to preserve the content. This information will be useful when the schools are finally merged, and an article under the schools' new name can be created. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Zander[edit]

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

This one is frustrating. He ought to be notable, but I can't find any references. - Eastmain (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 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. Cirt (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country Gold Weekend[edit]

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

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability according to WP:N or WP:GNG. The only reference given appears to be a press release, and the only futonable source found was another press release. It's fairly likely this article was created by Mr. Keller himself; even with WP:AGF it's not possible for this article to become encyclopedic. tedder (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 19:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep The aforementioned press release did start from a legit news story. One article in a local paper is a bit thin, but maybe there is more? --Esprqii (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article is now referenced by multiple citations to reliable third-party sources, subject is a nationally syndicated radio show (not merely a local program), and a motivated editor should be able to dig several more reliable sources out of the 32,100 Google hits for 'Keller "Back Porch Show"' (this program's previous name). - Dravecky (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep Only marginally notable. SYSS Mouse (talk) 23:14, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7th Heaven (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable band WuhWuzDat 15:35, 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, KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no AfD tag on this article. Looking up at the article's history log, the last edit is dated Dec 6, while the original AfD listing is dated Dec 10. So this seems to be a malformed AfD nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. AGFing on the nominator's part, as this page's history indicates use of a script that has erred for me too on occasion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Undecided at the moment, but I did find these: [58], [59], and www.examiner.com/x-27562-Aurora-Club-Music-Examiner~y2009m11d5-7th-heaven --Michig (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was delighted to add these sources to the article with additional matreials used. So many hanks werldwayd (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I suspect notability is hiding in there. Things need to be wikified properly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a "suspicion of notability" is like being "sort of pregnant"...it either is, or it isn't. WuhWuzDat 00:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very notable band particularly in Illinois area. It has had staying power since 1985 and still going strong, a number of valuable albums have been released and an active band to this day. For in-depth coverage of the band's legacy, see this interview with lead member Richard Hofherr by Hard Rock Hideout.com [60] werldwayd (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep References provided need improvement but as they stand seem just this side of acceptable per WP:Music. --A1octopus (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percussion (Software)[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Given references are all press releases, and I have been unable to find any significant independent coverage that would indicate the subject passes the general notability guideline or WP:CORP. Haakon (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Haakon (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is the right place to reply.

I believe this is Notable coverage on Percussion:

CMS Watch - http://www.cmswatch.com/CMS/Vendors/Percussion

Note the top six links of most recent coverage are neither press releases, announcements or other "routine" news issued by Percussion. CMS Watch is vendor independent (http://www.cmswatch.com/About/). As they do their own research and interviews, this would seem to constitute in-depth coverage by a primary source.

Next, search for "Percussion Rhythmyx" or simply "Rhythmyx"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=rhythmyx&btnG=Search&cts=1261434248122&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Rhythmyx often yields more notable search results, including blog posts, product reviews, documentation, and other content written by third parties. This is because most third party writers still use the original brand name of "Rhythmyx" for the WCMS whereas most content written by Percussion uses the more recent term "Percussion CM System."

Some examples are below:

Third Party Authored Online Help/Info

http://mass-spec.lsu.edu/wiki/index.php/Rhythmyx

http://podcast.uri.edu/help/index.php/Percussion_Rhythmyx

Independent Organizations

Toronto Rhythmyx/Percussion User Group - http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2323722

Blog Posts

http://www.jboye.com/blogpost/percussion-says-goodbye-to-rhythmyx/

http://drupal.org/node/330446

Media Reviews (secondary source content)

CMS Wire - http://www.cmswire.com/s/results/?cx=006171070544741918777%3Avcodaewypvc&q=percussion&cof=FORID%3A9&siteurl=www.cmswire.com%2Fs%2F%3Fq%3Dpercussion#952

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,6824,00.asp

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Midmarket/Review-Rhythmyx-5/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimrich (talk • contribs) 22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fair to disclose that you are the CTO of the company in question. Haakon (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure is why I used my wikipedia login to make the post, so it would be clear - or at least traceable - who it was from. I just checked again and I don't see any spot in my user registration/profile forms to list company affiliation. I don't think I warrant a user page. I am the CTO of Percussion. I'll happily provide any further info that is sought wherever it would be most appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimrich (talk • contribs) 15:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, this is unambiguous advertising: a provider of enterprise web content management (WCM) solutions.... Percussion's solutions extend the functionality of the base platform to include segmenting and dynamic content targeting, content syndication and importing, blogs, user-generated content, and web analytics integration. The references are all announcements of product version releases or inclusions of the software or business on various "top 100" lists by trade magazines with a limited audience. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence cited as "advertising" is meant as a description of the category of product.

Compare for example to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitecore "Sitecore provides web content management, online marketing, and intranet portal solutions to large and medium sized organizations worldwide."

And compare to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignette_%28software%29 "Vignette Corporation (NASDAQ: VIGN) is a suite of content management, portal, collaboration, document management, and records management software"

And compare to:

The terms used in the sentence are all category terms the describe software or web site functions all linkable to existing wikipedia terms pages: "enterprise" = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_software "web content management" = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_content_management "solution" - may be a valid objection, as it is considered "jargon" in business, however, in software it's usage is more specific - a solution is simply something you buy that requires consulting services, rather than "shrink wrap" license model. The inclusion of the term "solution" was meant only to differentiate from that on a category basis. This could easily be removed or changed to something more specific, such as "combination of licensed product or services."

However, compare to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DotNetNuke

"DotNetNuke ... is written in VB.NET and distributed under both a Community Edition BSD-style license [3] and a Professional Edition commercial license. DotNetNuke has an extensive user community and third-party developer ecosystem, and the application's content management system is extensible and customizable through the use of skins and modules."

Compare also to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfresco_%28software%29

"Alfresco is an enterprise content management system for Microsoft Windows and Unix-like operating systems. Alfresco comes in two flavours[2]. Alfresco Community Edition is free software, GPL licensed open source and open standards. Alfresco Enterprise Edition is commercially / proprietary licensed open source, open standards and enterprise scale."

Other industry standard terms used:

syndication, blogs, user-generated content, web analytics. All wikipedia entries, and all compatible with existing examples describing products that are shown above.

If something is "advertising" for Percussion, it should be "advertising" for Alfresco, DotNetNuke or any of the others - correct? We wrote the description to conform to standards used in those pages.

Three independent notability examples were listed above: Tornoto User Group URI and LSU user community/help pages

The CMS Watch references also listed above show usage of Percussion to - describe a type of CMS architecture http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1363-Decoupled-Web-CMS-vendors-have-not-disappeared - comment on company visibility http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1420-Percussion---Is-no-news-good-news? - comment on a type of user modeling http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1392-When-your-CMS-has-Roles,-but-not-Groups

We'll be rewriting the entry to feature better use of these links, and to remove any jargon.

I would also strongly encourage examining existing comparable non-deleted entries for similar products/companies which all talk about the type of product, license, market target and functions they offer in similar, if not word for word terminology. There seem to be a vastly different standard in that the text that constitutes a "description" for open source products is considered "advertising" for commercial systems. Indeed, many of the entries for the non-commercial systems make the stronger "advertising" superlative claims, including "most widely adopted" etc. without even a flag. Such superlatives are not found in the current summary.

Thanks for consideration as we attempt to improve this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimrich (talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made a bunch of changes, showing citations, notability outside of press release citations and clarifying use of Solutions as a brand name. Removed awards and anything else that might be considered self promotion. Again, it appears to be entirely comparable to Day Software, Alfresco in terms of reference sources, citations and general tone. Your further consideration is appreciated. Vimrich (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does nothing to indicate notability. There are still no references to significant coverage. Narrowly-distributed trade press is not significant, nor are incidental mentions in otherwise significant sources. Blogs are rarely considered reliable sources.

Note that other stuff exists, and that does not mean that guidelines do not apply. Wikipedia is work in progress and cannot be expected to be consistent.

As CTO of the subject company, you have a considerable conflict of interest issue, as do I suspect CJO3000 has. Wikipedia should not be used for promotional purposes. Haakon (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources provided do not establish notability. Miami33139 (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BizFilings[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability: almost all of the sources of information are from the company, so not independent. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was deleted under CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, and userfied upon request. I told the creator on their talk page that the references were either not independent or were not significant coverage. They added two references (Forbes and NYT) but left the rest as it was. I thought that this should be brought to AfD to get consensus on the issue, as I feel that WP:ORG and WP:GNG are not met.

An analysis of the references provided and why I believe that they do not meet ORG/GNG:

'News and Media':

The first two links are referred to in my message on the creator's talk page (see User_talk:Julieapeck#User:Julieapeck:BizFilings) ("Today's Tip: Incorporate Online to Save Money". BusinessWeek (Bloomberg) - This is written by BizFilings' GM - not independent; "Recession Sparks Rise in Demand for Women-Owned Home-Based Business Incorporation Services". PRNewswire (Redorbit.com) - This is from a Press Release from BizFilings (hence the "PRNewswire" tag on the site), so it is not independent)
The "Forbes' Best of the Web" link is a new one, but the link provided didn't go to a valid page - it was just a page with headers, etc, but no content (I tried it in both Internet Explorer and Safari, in case there was a browser-specific problem) - I have asked the crator of the article if they could find a specific link. However, looking at past issues of "Forbes' BoW", it tends to have very short mentions of a particular website - not major coverage.

In the References

All of them (apart from the NYT one) are mentioned in my message on the creator's talk page referred to above, and not sufficient to meet the criteria for reliable or independent sources of information - Crunchbase is a wiki-style site, where people upload their own information; the rest are from the company's (or its parent company's) website: hence not independent.
The NYT reference: The article contains a single sentence about the Toolkit: When it comes to sorting through financial information, CCH Business Owner’s Toolkit has templates to help examine financial issues as well as other model business documents, checklists and government forms..

Overall, I do not see that this added together counts as significant coverage: most of it comes from the company itself - and the two that don't (the Forbes and NYT) either don't have a link that works to go to the correct page, or it is a single-sentence mention - and hence this AfD. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. There is also a good deal of advertising language here; the text describes the current owner of the business as a global provider of information, tools and workflow solutions to legal, financial, tax, healthcare and regulatory professionals around the world. And you need quite a few brief mentions to get to notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single sentence in NYT does not establish notability. Miami33139 (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus here seems to indicate that the article fails short of notability requirements. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Munir Hussain (businessman)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article appears to be about a marginally notable person, with the only significant coverage relating to one event only. TN X Man 22:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Tnxman307. What makes this man any different to some of the other people up on Wikipedia e.g. Larry Hryb [61] or Eric Neustadter [62]? Munir has made a significant contribution to his community and I would argue moreso that some of the others cited on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibee1971 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant coverage other than the WP:ONEEVENT. It has nothing to do with his contributions to the community or whether there are other articles that may be even less deserving. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Meets notability guidelines per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of stories about this person and this issue. A merge or a retitle may be a possibility if there are BLP concerns, but this is definitely notable and still being reported on. [63] ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – For two reasons: First, one event. This is a classic example of the one event guidelines for non-inclusion here at Wikipedia. Second, Basic General Notability requirements are not met, in which significant coverage, for more than one event, are required for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're considering changing the laws regarding home invasions as a result of this case. So it's a notable event. The one event guidelines shouldn't be misapplied to eliminate articles on important events and notable persons of significance. There are ongoing legal proceedings, hearings, political discussions etc etc. It's like saying the Iraq War is one event... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If and when they do change the laws, based on this particular home invasion, I will support a piece here at Wikipedia similar to the article on Megan's Law. However, if they do not, this is no different than any other home invasion that will happen hundreds of times today around the world. Would each deserve an article here at Wikipedia? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 12:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Home invasion rarely (if ever) generate this level of interest, media coverage, or political discourse including proposals to revise legal processes. It's an ongoing issue, so deletion is also premature. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is more than one event e.g. "Yesterday [21/12/09] it was revealed the serial criminal was accused of committing more offences after he had recovered. However, he received an absolute discharge for those because he was deemed unfit to plead. The case last night prompted claims that Salem had effectively been given 'a licence to commit crime'." (Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237632/New-let-brain-damaged-burglar-got-decent-man-sent-jail.html#ixzz0bAW9BrUN). And this home invasion in the UK made the news elsewhere, e.g. in Australia (http://www.theage.com.au/world/british-man-jailed-for-attacking-armed-burglar-20091215-kugg.html), so clearly it is different from other home invasions that happen 100s of times every day around the world. However the article is uninformative about the case and most of the information about Munir Hussain is not relevant; it is not the home invasion but the judge's sentencing which is noteworthy. Aarghdvaark (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I've updated the article as I suggested - sigh Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic example of WP:BLP1E. 2 says you, says two 18:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fairly obviously WP:BLP1E. "single event" can refer to a single chain of events, not just a moment; the fact that there is other crap happening around a single event does not change its nature. Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BLPE1E guidelines states that "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."

Clearly this is a significant event and the individual's role is substantial. So it does not fall under the BLP1E guideline. It's already been in the news for weeks, it's a political and legal issue, and deleting the article is grossly premature. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of Munir Hussain (businessman) or Munir Hussain's experience of a burglary[edit]

This went off-line - but I think the discussion really belongs here so I've pasted it below. Comments? Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aargh, I reverted your additions to Munir Hussain. It seems like those belong in an article about the events and trials, not in a biography. But I'm happy to discuss or we can get other input on it. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is some discussion about deleting this person's entry. As far as his personal biography goes, although he is a successful businessman and a family man this is not unusual in itself. What is noteworthy about him is the armed home invasion he suffered and the toll he took on one of the intruders. Someone looking on Wikipedia for "Munir Hussain" is going to be looking for information about that event and its consequences, not that Munir was awarded some award, member of this or that, etc.

There are biographies on Wikipedia of people who have become important, and in those cases what school they went to may well be of interest (David Cameron went to Eton College I see), but many people only have their 15 minutes of fame - although I bet Munir wishes it hadn't happened to him. These people are sometimes mentioned in passing in other articles, but in this case it would be difficult to locate a suitable article? "UK home invasions" wouldn't really work?

The problem is that Munir Hussain's name has been associated with this particular event. So the article either has to be a biography of Munir Hussain, which would be of little interest to anyone except his family and I would see little point in keeping it in Wikipedia, or about the event - which is important and I think should be in Wikipedia. What do you think the article should be titled? Aarghdvaark (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

- How about having an article on Home invasion in Britain discussing the case and the legal issues being discussed regarding victims of burglary, vigilantism and whatever other issues are involved? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

- - I think that would be more like a newspaper article about the state of the nation and the rights of citizens v. law-breakers, just bringing in such events as the home invasion to support a POV. But have a look at the recent case of Akmal Shaikh. I think that shows what I was talking about - there is only enough biography about Akmal to show the relevance of the issue of his state of mind to the court case. It doesn't get listed as an article "Barbaric Chinese Court Practices" or "Chinese executions of foreigners".
  - I agree about ages changing :) Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynastia Miziołków[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the information in the article in the Polish WP, of which the Google Translation is [64]. The key information is that it won the Polish award for Children's Bestseller of the Year for 1996 and another Polish prize of significance [65] for 1995. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the awards and the sources now in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:10, 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, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I added some more information from the Polish Wikipedia. (Phil Bridger previously added some), Quite a number of articles added from other Wikipedias are only partially entered, & there is more to be said. Here , there is additional information on the importance of the author--as well as national level prizes. I do not think it good practice to nominate a national topic for deletion when there is a corresponding topic in that language's Wikipedia without checking first. Google translate may not be good enough to produce a decently written article, but it's good enough to see roughtly what the information is. DGG ( talk ) 13:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per both the comments and additions of DGG and Phil Bridger.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:52, 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. Tone 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Bhargava[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. mainly passing mentions in gnews [66]. don't think the 1 film Sangam is enough to get him over the line. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per meeting WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There is enough in Google News to expand and source this article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's within the scope of WP:BIO and WP:FILMBIO Eveswing (talk) 13:19, 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, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand; his film Sangam does not have a page yet, but it would appear to be noteworthy, and once that page is written this one will be easy. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:35, 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.