< 9 November	11 November >

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petru Buzgău[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet wikipedia notability criteria for academics WP:Notability (academics) or WP:Creative Polargeo (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see how the nominator's rationale for deletion has anything to do with the subject. The article doesn't claim that he's any kind of academic, but a painter. WP:CREATIVE is the right guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was adding a whole load of academic artists. I have added the correct one now. Polargeo (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE, and I can't find enough reliable sources to support general notability.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 03:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of multiple independent sources establishing notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chandos chamber choir[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Google news search brought up zero hits, Web search brought up primary sources and brief mentions of performances. RadioFan (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless solid reliable sources are produced to verify notability and copyright problem is addressed through verifying permission or complete rewriting. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Rep from the organisation) Will address these issues asap. Jennymulholland (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if the copyright problems are cleared up, there are no reliables sources covering this choir. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dacian Andoni[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (academics)(also suspect a copyvio possibility because of editor's other actions) Polargeo (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could someone with Romanian as native language look at these links? [1], [2], [3], [4] --Vejvančický (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by default as evidence of notability is not forthcoming. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - the mention by Observatorul Cultural is a start, but I would have to see more evidence before considering him notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cooper (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a third one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 3rd one does not have this personal name, but as it is similar it is arguably valid in a see also section, I withdraw the nomination. Boleyn3 (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Three entries now. Would have voted delete, but, well...now there's three, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Due to the existing hatnote on Ben Cooper, rendering the disambiguation page unecessary. I'm pretty sure if somebody was looking for Judge Irving Ben Cooper, they wouldn't be searching for the Judge's middle and last name. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And add articles on the Ben Cooper (bushwhacker) who rode with Quantrill's Raiders and the James-Younger Gang, and the Ben Cooper (pioneer) who played a notable enough role in the early history of Missouri. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you wish to create articles on these Bens, then please do so and add them to the dab. But as it stands, neither meet MOS:DABRL and so can't really be taken into account. As it's a navigational tool rather than an article, it should only reflect WP as it is, not what could be added at some point, which may or may not turn out to be notable. Boleyn2 (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, delete. If a third Ben Cooper would be added (first and last name), then we can keep (or recreate, if done after the AfD).--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 13:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Unionhawk. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 trance music. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic trance[edit]

The article is a stub and it is unsourced for more than half a year.
Google.Books search on "classic trance" results 1 trivial mention of "classic trance" and it never claims it is a particular type of music.
Google web search on "classic trance" returns about 134k results; 10 first pages with results do not contain anything reliable on "classic trance". Moreof, while analysing search results, I have noticed that "classic trance" is very often used as general descriptor (eg, "classic trance tunes"). -- Appletangerine un (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - This does seem to be a style of music which many bands associate themselves with, I'm just unable to find any sources dealing with the subject itself. If I or anyone else finds any, I'll change my vote to a keep. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to trance music. Not really anything to merge. I notice that other subgenres are already tagged to be merged. — Gwalla | Talk 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trance music. Not a whole lot of content, and, as Gwalla said, the other Trance subgenres have already been tagged for a merge.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 13:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This subgenre doesn't need its own page. Angryapathy (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J-Core[edit]

This article is a personal essay on imaginable (inexistent) subgenre of hardcore. All sources are not reliable. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldn't be surprised if some people referred to these artists as "J-core" (by analogy with J-pop, which is pretty common: see J-rock). These artists do exist, and the ones I'm familiar with do use anime vocal samples. However, I'm not sure that's really enough to qualify as a subgenre. DJ Sharpnel, for example, seem to self-identify as speedcore. At any rate there doesn't seem to have been much written about this subject as such. — Gwalla | Talk 19:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism with no reliable sources. The sources provided in the article are wikis (including another WP article) and one blog. The term is apparently used in some circles, but there isn't enough coverage of it as distinct genre to justify an article at this point. --RL0919 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO that sources two wikis and, the icing on the cake, urbandictionary. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 21:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Palette[edit]

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

Fifth place finisher on a reality television program. Notability is not established in the article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only other assertion of notability is significant role in the film Under the Raven's Wing, which has an article although I'm not convinced that article establishes notability either. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to fulfill notability standards.--Staberinde (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If such a young actor achieves notability in the futurem then ... Black Kite 00:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Lewis[edit]

I think this article should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmed871 (talk • contribs) 2009/11/03 23:01:23

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article demonstrates notability, and I added a reference from Money magazine. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. This is one of those marginal notability cases where there is just barely enough coverage to create a stub article. The Money article is a profile of the family's finances, the sort of article that could be about any family, without regard to notability. Most other coverage is passing mentions in reviews of her one notable movie. Given that this is a BLP (of a minor child at that), I think we need a bit more. --RL0919 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Regan[edit]

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

Notability -advertising - CopyVio see below Tracer9999 (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

notability

This article seems to be an orphan and has severe notability issues. All the refs were a youtube ref and other sites which didn't even say anything about him. One claimed he was in a tv series but the IMDB page didn't even mention him. The text seems to all be CopyVio and taken direct from his personal webpage at http://www.omarregan.com/bio.php and 1 unsourced news article about his father. remove the copyvio and its a blank page.

From what I can gather he played a few bit parts in some tv shows and his father is an alleged terrorist who was killed the other night. So from what I can see he has no notability and this wiki article serves nothing more then as an advertising page for him and his myspace and facebook accounts. req that its deleted due to no notability on his own. and absolutly no references in the article. It also appears this was already speedy deleted before.

-Tracer9999 (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His few projects do not approach the criteria of WP:ENT and there is nothing available in reliable sourcing to support the assertions. His father's noteriety is not his notability. It's an unsourcable BLP and is thus in violation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As an actor/performer, I don't see notability, and the relationship or someone killed in an FBI raid would not confer notability either - nor are there sources that confirm that. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established by reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. should have done the same as I did to virtually the rest of the disambuigation pages bunch last night rather then relisted. JForget 15:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Anthony (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete, unnecessary page; The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic (WP:MOSDAB). I put a hatnote at the primary to the only other entry. Boleyn3 (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add a third listing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what third listing? If there is one to add, great, add it and I'll withdraw the nomination, but I couldn't find one. If you can't find a third listing, then your comment is irrelevant. Boleyn3 (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Before for instructions on AfD nominator responsibilities. "Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered." ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this isn't an article, it's a navigational tool. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- speedy deleteable per ((db-disambig)), a case of G6. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Mitchell (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, he is non-notable because he was elected in 2009 in a special election and was defeated in both the September primary and the general election on November 3, 2009, in which he ran as a third party candidate, thus he will have served a total of only ten (10) months. Although his article seems very substantive, it is mostly campaign election cruft. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What you wrote in that second paragraph seems to me to justify notability, not disprove it. He was elected to the NYC council and will have served in that position for 10 months.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some false positives, but this search shows a number ao articles about the councilman. [5]--Cube lurker (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will work to adjust article and omit campaign fluff.SIbuff

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles in Cube lurker's Google News search seem to provide enough coverage. It's in local publications (as one would expect for a councilman), but it is in multiple publications and includes some coverage from before his election, when he was an aide to another politician (e.g., [6]). Not a slam-dunk for notability, but it should be enough for a brief article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shidduch. Black Kite 00:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bashert[edit]

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

"Minor subject in Judaism and not information for the wider English speaking public. Not an English term and this is an English language wiki. Moved to the Yiddish wiki. Alatari (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

Hence too small to be notable enough for an article of their own. Newman Luke (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- False assertion. Firstly, if it's a stub, it can be expanded. Secondly, the word "Bashert" is in popular usage with many English-speaking Jewish people. See the English Google that has 37,800 "Bashert" hits . Thirdly there are many English words derived from other languages noted on Wikipedia: Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin. Fourthly Wikipedia is home to all sorts of words from all languages, see these: Category:Words and phrases by language that includes Category:Yiddish words and phrases and Category:Hebrew words and phrases and many others like this. Finally, therefore, absolutely no one says they should be "deleted"! IZAK (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm curious. Why state that against my comment, rather than against the nominators? Newman Luke (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because of the way you phrased your concurrance with the nominator and made it seem like a seamless ongoing assertion. IZAK (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a convincing deletion rationale in this nomination. If it gets an article in Yiddish, it merits one here. It is possible for subjects to be exhausted by brief articles; see Amafanius. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think its basically something along the lines of its a word translation. what more can be said about it that isn't already covered by soulmate. If you think there's something distinctly Jewish about it - that there is something about a bashert that is quite distinct from a soulmate, or that there is something substantial and unique to Judaism about how it regards/treats/believes-in a soulmate, would it be possible for you to add to the article to make this material clear? (if you do make changes of this kind, please leave a comment here, so we can review the changes and decide whether to change our stance about the article). Newman Luke (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your very obvious error here is that the word "bashert" is not just about a soul mate alone. In a Jewish religious context it is a word that if often and accurately used to describe that whatever befalls a Jew, and all people, is so to speak "all in God's hands" and "directed from Above" (not my expression, but how it's used and understood) so that to limit it only to "soulmate" is absolutely not correct. The translation is closer, but not exactly, to "Preordained" than to anything else. And therefore it is about the totality of what is pre-ordained not just people's soul-mates. IZAK (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would appreciate it if you would be a little less obsessed about me. I am not the nominator of this AfD. I am stating above what I believe User:Alatari's nomination reason to mean. Take it up with him/her, or present it as an alternative interpretation of his/her motives. Stop overly picking on me. Newman Luke (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I modified my original opinion and it is stated below this line. I am not an expert in the realms of religion and underestimated the importance of the term. I still don't believe the article can stand on it's own without some additional edits. That said, Wikipedia is a nice hobby but this level of emotions on this topic is not the Middle Path. Alatari (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not paper. No reason given for thinking it "too minor". The concept seems specific in the sense used, as explained in the article. The en WP covers the entire world; it merely happens to be written in English. Different Wikipedia may have different inclusion criteria -- broader or narrower than ours' - but that is another matter. There is no such thing as a subject too specific to one language area to be covered in another. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with shidduch, which discusses the Jewish matchmaking process and where the concept is best discussed in context. JFW | T@lk 18:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge to Divine providence (Judaism) (per User:Shlomke below) because, even though it's a word of Yiddish origin, as a concept it conveys an entire outlook of how classical Judaism views the combination of the metaphysical with human affairs in Jewish matchmaking (as an example). It is basically the Jewish way of referring to Predestination or Preordained which the notion of "bashert" basically encapsulates from the Jewish perspective. If anything, this article should be enriched with Predestination#Jewish views and somewhere in the Free will article there was also a connection to this topic. At any rate, despite its modest sounding name, the topic of "bashert" is important in mystical Jewish thought. Jewish singles websites use this word and idea a lot, alone worthy of an article. There are 37,800 Google hits for the Word "Bashert" alone, surely worthy of a larger article and a clear-cut keep. IZAK (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the shidduch per JFW. It's a very short article; barely more than a definition. This is a change in my view since technically I'm the original AfD editor. If it is concluded it is very notable then it needs some work. Alatari (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge obviously into Shidduch. The concept is well know throughout America, but definitely not in need of an article of its own. It's more like a word definition. Willing to make the merge, if an willing editor is needed. Debresser (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, the word "bashert" and its meaning is not just about "shidduch" (finding a match) in Jewish parlance and thought, it is also used as a term for what is "pre-destined" or "pre-ordained" by fate in all walks of life, not just in finding a marriage partner. IZAK (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be covered in the Divine providence article . ~~It still does not merit an article of its own~~. Shlomke (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On second thought, when one word means two or more things it might be better to have a separate article for that term. Shlomke (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you Shlomke for bringing this to our attention, I agree with you that "Bashert" as a serious topic should be merged with Divine providence (Judaism) as you correctly point out. IZAK (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel honored :) Shlomke (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Shidduch and Divine providence (Judaism) as the term has different meanings and applies to both articles. Shlomke (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect into Shidduch, per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 niddah. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben niddah[edit]

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

"Minor subject in Judaism and not information for the wider English speaking public. Not an English term and this is an English language wiki. Moved to the Yiddish wiki. Alatari (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

Hence too small to be notable enough for an article of their own. Newman Luke (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, could I suggest it is merged into niddah rather than deleted. Sidefall (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm fine with that Newman Luke (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Niddah. JFW | T@lk 23:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Burial Site of Mahsuri in Phuket[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks any resource nor attempt at notability on its own. AfD was already removed by article creator once. Reason given for that: "The article provides insufficient context for lay readers to understand what it is about.", and one reply given that we already have similar content. I'm not inclined to disagree and I'm mostly responding to the unreasonable discussion removal. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I suppose this is technically a second nomination because the article's primary contributor deleted the AfD tag earlier this evening, but I have a feeling someone is going to want to merge them. Sorry for any confusion. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the coverage we need is already in the article on Mahsuri. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When an AfD tag is removed, the procedure is to restore it, not start a second nomination, that's why Template:Uw-afd exists. Only prod tags can be contested like that, if the user wanted to defend the article they should have gone to the AfD. BlazerKnight (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need clarification--I know this now but was not certain. This is why I noted it at the top if it could be fixed and I did leave a warning... I just hadn't run into this before. If there are any move removals what would suggestion be then? I can only think of RAA or, I'd hit 3RR problems. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by Paularblaster above, the relevant content is already in Mahsuri. This article simply retells the story in a non-encyclopedic format. --RL0919 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Monastic Protestant Community in Enonkoski[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews and google is mainly mirror sites. Finnish article is also unreferenced so not sure if this even has coverage in Finnish. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I acknowledge there is some coverage in Finnish but am unable to verify how reliable these sources are due to a lack of translation as preferred WP:NONENG. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, the current version of the article is unreferenced. That does not mean the subject has no coverage in media. Try Google "Enonkosken luostari" and "Enonkosken luostariyhteisö". --SM (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Finnish, so would not be able to determine how useful the sources are. however, I don't see the value of this article on English wikipedia, if no English speakers are ever going to have any value. I'm also wary of WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most useful sources, like in most of the subjects, are not on Google search engine. --SM (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please provide the sources then. you have only provided google searches not sources. LibStar (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google is a search engine, and by using it may be possible to find useful sources. You just seemed to think that Google is the only indicator for notability. My physical location at this moment is not in library or other place where these written sources are available and providable, which does not affect to the notability of the subject. But I provide few news articles and other secondary/3rd party sources found in the Internet: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. In written form, more information of the Enonkoski monastery can be found for example in book Yhteisöt ja kirkon uudistuminen by Heikki Kotila, it has a section "Enonkosken luostari – yhteyden mahdollisuus" written by priest Pirjo Työrinoja [15][16]. --SM (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said google was the only indicator. these sources indicate notability in Finnish language wikipedia not necessarily English WP. I doubt a non finnish speaker is going to look up "Enonkosken luostariyhteisö". LibStar (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you can have your opinion. That is just not the idea of Wikipedia. --SM (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well do you expect say for example every Japanese and Chinese WP topic to be translated into English? LibStar (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect that, but yes, it would be useful to some Anglophone non-Japanese/Chinese speaking Wikipedia reader to find information of some Japanese or Chinese subject. As well as this article is useful for English speaker interested in monasteries in general or this particular monastery, especially as you noticed there is only slightly information about the particular subject in other English websites. --SM (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. Articles must meet WP:N and WP:ORG. this article passes the test for Finnish WP not English WP in my opinion. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a reason for keeping, it was an answer to your comment about uselesness which is alike no reason for keeping or deleting. The article and the subject has no problem to meet WP:N and WP:ORG since the language of the source material is not a reason for deleting. --SM (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes you can use WP:NONENG sources but they should be translated. You have not translated any of these sources so I can't verify that they are WP:RS. these sources must still satisfy WP:RS. but it is highly preferable for independent translation of these. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true that it would be good for non-English sources to be translated. The WP:NONENG does not clearly give an order to translate. Like I already said the current version is unsourced, which is unfavourable, and I provided the sources to disprove your claim that there are no possible useful sources at all. --SM (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't verify the sources. nor can any non-Finnish speaker which accounts for the vast majority of English WP users. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONENG: "sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available."--SM (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes but preferably they should be translated into English. of course if they're not translated that weakens their reliability for English Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you think the sources can't be translated? --SM (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some sources are not reliable, some make passing mentions, not all sources conform to WP:RS. since I don't speak Finnish and no translation has been provided I cannot verify the quality of the sources you have provided for English WP. If this was Finnish WP that is fine as it would be safe to assume I'm a Finnish speaker. LibStar (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I have mentioned it was originally and answer to disprove your claim there are no useful sources or media coverage. In my opinion they are as reliable as independent secundary sources are. The [17] was already not mentioned to be used as a sorce, but to provide you source material which you asked. Anyways, how can you investigate anything about passing mentions or being not reliable if you don't know the language?

exactly, that is the issue with non English sources in English WP. they require reliable translations for verification purposes. LibStar (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in fact, if they were reliably translated and satisfied WP:RS, then myself and other non Finnish speaking WP users can verify how they establish notability. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But in fact, the mother tongue or the lack of language skills of Wikipedia users are not reasons for deleting.--SM (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that. but there is an expectation that non English sources should be able to be verified for English speakers for English WP. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But translation doesn't affect to the reliability of the original source. --SM (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here are few translations of the sources. These are not to be used in the article, but to give some kind of description about the reliability and verifiability of these sources: [18] (a news article in third party media), [19] (a tird party news item in the website of Oulu parish, [20] (A week long radio series of one of the inhabitants of the monastery by Finnish Public Broadcasting Company YLE), [21] (a therd party article in one of the most popular magazines Apu, part of it consist information about the monastery), [22] (a third party news article about a seminar held in the monastery)... --SM (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know where the nominator has got the idea from that sources have to be accessible to every reader, whether it terms of physical access, familiarity with the subject matter or language, or that non-English sources have to be translated. I'm sure that there's nothing in policy or guidelines that suggests this. SM has presented many sources, and those of us who don't read Finnish should accept that they are as described unless any evidence is presented to the contrary. I've added a reference to an English-language source to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as per WP:NONENG, non English sources are permitted but they should be translated for the benefit of determining their value and if they meet WP:RS. what SM might think is acceptable should be tested by the wider community. is that not a reasonable expectation given that is article is nominated for deletion? It is not a criticism of SM, s/he is quite entitled to give us Finnish sources, just that I think English speakers should be given an opportunity to see the quality of sources. as an experienced editor, sometimes sources only make passing mentions rather than in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONENG says nothing of the sort. Please read it carefully. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the preference for non English sources to be translated for the benefit of English WP Where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem to have difficulty understanding English, let alone Finnish. That explains the procedure to follow when a translation of a direct quotation is provided - it doesn't say that translations of sources should be provided. In fact, posting a translation of a large enough part of a source to demonstrate that it amounts to significant coverage would be a copyright violation, so should certainly not be encouraged. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you shouldn't insult other users as per WP:NPA. if non English sources are provided for WP, shouldn't English speakers be allowed to at least understand what the sources say? or do we blindly trust them? LibStar (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the difference between blindly trusting the sources or the translation? --SM (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as per WP:NONENG,"Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." I for one do not accept sources blindly. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Burial Site of Mahsuri in Phuket[edit]

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

The article provides insufficient context for lay readers to understand what it is about. Bwrs (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- well, it's a fringe theory about Mahsuri and where she is buried. That's reasonably clear to me. But we already have a reasonably-well sourced article about Mahsuri, whereas this article is completely unsourced and has two irrelevant (and probably non-free) photos, so we wouldn't gain anything by a merge. cab (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - find some sources, if they exist, and add the info to the Mahsuri page. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 21:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reason I already gave in the duplicate nomination. --RL0919 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List_of_Universal_Century_characters. Black Kite 00:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tem Ray[edit]

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

Extremely minor character who plays little role in the overall plot. Not appropriate to merge. Prod with no given reason. —Farix (t | c) 02:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect. Every named character in a major fiction should be at least redirected to a suitable list. I agree that we do not want to have a multitude of individual articles, but it seems significant enough for content. Is there some particular reason why that would harm Wikipedia? DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it would harm wikipedia, as less new articles are being made, and less editors are working on wiki. If a character is notable enough to be used in alot of things and such, like Ichigo from Tokyo Mew Mew it should merit it's own article - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that applys to this article. Removing or merging a non notable character most certainly is not harming wikipedia (on the contrary). All pages have to fulfil certain requirements (such as Notability), the nominated article does not fulfill them. Dandy Sephy (talk)

Delete and Redirect to List_of_Universal_Century_characters - Apparently Merge is not an appropriate vote in AfD debates, leaving me with no option but to argue Delete on the merits. No evidence or claim of independent notability is made in the article, so a stand-alone article is not warranted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a rule against voting merge in an AFD. To the best of my knowledge it is generally discouraged for a nominator creating an AFD for the purposes of a merge deabate (that belongs on the artice's talk page) and that they should only start one if they want the page deleted. I am not however aware of any rule stating that someone else cannot mention a potential merge target if they think there is one the nominator may have missed.--76.71.215.85 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'm pretty merge is a very valid "vote". While proposing a article for AFD purely for merging is clearly inappropriate, people wanting to merge the content to another article are free to "vote" so. Preferably while providing a reason. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Not very much content there. (And merge has always been a valid xFD suggestion.) --Gwern (contribs) 16:51 14 November 2009 (GMT)
Comment: I oppose a merge on the grounds that it would be a merge in name only. Other than that keep or delete as you please. -- allen四names 03:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_Universal_Century_characters. Edward321 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Shea Lowder[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable book, by an author who does not have his own Wikipedia article.

I would also like to nominate Shea Lowder, article about a character in the book, for deletion as a non-notable character in a non-notable book. TheLetterM (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete google search shows no mention of this specific author. can be safely deleted until his books/he become(s) notable, hopefully feb 2010. until then, bye bye.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book hasn't even been released yet, and there is no significant advanced coverage that would make it notable. --RL0919 (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG, this has little third party coverage and no coverage outside North Carolina. gnews search. also WP:ORG states Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ORG should be read carefully as it distinguishes between "local" and "regional", with regional coverage being deemed "a strong indicator of notability" but local coverage being "not an indication". Interest throughout North Carolina would arguably be regional, rather than local. (See also WP:LOCALINT, which argues that matters of merely local significance may still be notable where they nevertheless pass WP:N.) However, the more pressing problem here is that the article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. The article presents compelling evidence that the organisation in question actually does exist, but per WP:EXIST a higher standard is required for "notability". - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability in this case is that the group takes a position on a controversial issue and seeks to change legislation in North Carolina to permit same-sex marriage. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG is the criterion here not if an organisation takes a position on a controversial issue. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a position on the controversial issue of same-sex marriage and sought to change legislation to permit it; it doesn't make me notable unless that position is widely discussed by independent reliable sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed! LibStar (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources - I've just reviewed the sources in the article to refresh my memory and unfortunately The News & Observer piece is now a dead link, the Durham News piece doesn't talk about this organisation but rather three people who happen to be on its steering committee, and the WRAL piece is a trivial mention. The remaining sources aren't independent. So there's not just a notability issue but also a sourcing one. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well can't see how it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG then in the absence of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The WRAL article is not a "trivial mention". It is enough on its own to demonstrate notability. The News & Observer reference is still valid, even if it is no longer available online. See this Google News archive search for several references from reliable sources. The summaries displayed by Google News are enough to indicate that these are all valid references, and the article in the newspaper from Fayetteville demonstrates statewide attention for the group. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Four of the six news stories in the search you linked all appear to refer to the same single incident, a rally sponsored by the organisation. (WP:NOTNEWS). The other two relate to a presenntation of Reverend James Forbes that they sponsored. The quote from the WRAL source in its entirety is "The North Carolina Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality has a signed statement that says same-sex couples deserve the rights and protections of civil marriage." - the article then goes on to talk about the town council in Chapel Hill. It's a trivial mention. The newsobserver piece (now linked to correct article, thanks) is about the Reverend James Forbes, and says in passing, "The interfaith service is sponsored by the N.C. Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality," without any further context - again, it's a trivial mention. To put it another way, they're mentioned in connection with two events of only arguable notability; in the ordinary course of editing we'd make an article about the events and mention the Coalition in those articles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets notability guidelines. The WRAL link isn't trivial. The N&O link has been replaced. Additional sources - "Religious leaders oppose marriage bill", News 14 Carolina; "Politics to pulpits", The Fayetteville Observer; "Anti-gay marriage amendment introduced" Q-Notes; "The General Assembly Needs You", Independent Weekly; "Legislative update: 'Defense of Marriage'", Independent Weekly; "Lawmakers want ban on gay marriage", WTVD; "Hundreds gather in support of traditional marriage", WTVD; "Worship, eat and ask the reverend", The Durham News; "GOP State Senator Files to Amend N.C.'s Ban on Gay Unions", Winston-Salem Journal; "Faith in America takes on the right", Q-Notes APK because, he says, it's true 01:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Per WP:N the sources have to be significant ("address the subject directly in detail", "more than a trivial mention") and independent ("excludes [...] press releases"). So to deal with your sources. News 14 takes two quotes from people who happen to be members of the organisation (neither "direct" or "in detail"). Fayetteville Observer is pay-to-read and does not obviously refer to the Coalition at all. Independent Weekly (two sources) consists of a notification that the Coalition will be taking part in the March rally. (Not "in detail", and see my WP:NOTNEWS concerns above regarding this one event.) Q-Notes source 1 consists solely of a quote from the Coalition's press release, source 2 is about an individual who happens to be a member of the Coalition. WTVD pieces have a statement from a co-chair of the coalition who is not obviously acting in his capacity as co-chair. Durham News I've addressed previously. Winston-Salem Journal is pay to read and does not obviously mention the Coalition. In short, none of these sources are both significant and independent. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are trivial, but a few are enough to satisfy WP:N guidelines. Your interpretation of WP:N might be different than mine, but NCRCME meets notability criteria. APK because, he says, it's true 01:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones do you argue are non-trivial? And how do you say they get past the barrier of WP:NOTNEWS? (That is, why should we have an article on the Coalition rather than just mentioning them in an article about the rally?) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep from their website "the first annual NCRC4ME Lobby Day held in March, 2005. For the first time in North Carolina's history, NCRC4ME organized a statewide lobby day for LGBT-affirming people of faith and religious leaders in opposition to the discriminatory marriage amendment." and "North Carolina is the only southern state that has been successful in keeping the discriminatory marriage amendment from going to a vote for two consecutive years." Here is a list of the Steering Committee. Some reverse engineering to suss out what events were called and what the group was referred to in the media will start to unearth plenty of reliable sources. The article need some time invested to do this. Do a styay of execution and invest the time to understand the subject including what impact they have had. that they didn't have the wisdom to pick a better name and hire a press agent isn't surprising - church folks aren't really known for this. -- Banjeboi 03:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Sources used are either passing mentions of event sposorship, or primarily about certain members or guest speakers of the group which fail WP:NOTINHERITED. The WRAL source has one sentence mention the org in passing. I also cannot find any substantial coverage of the organization itself. While this org may make it self notable at some point, it does not meet the WP:GNG at this time. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Lacey[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits, GNEWS of substance, and references..Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this journalist. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom and Joe Chill. Frmatt (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Raouf Khan[edit]

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

Article has no references and no independent sources appear to be available. No indication that this person meets WP:POLITICIAN. Utility Monster (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Utility Monster (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Utility Monster (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have moved this article to the more common spelling in English: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a mayor of a major city. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His position as mayor/taluka nazim is verified by coverage in multiple reliable sources:[23]. Fences&Windows 00:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being the mayor of a major city and having coverage by multiple sources is enough to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 18:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mayor of large city and covered by multiple sources.--Staberinde (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barker's Bargain Bar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Barker's Bargain Bar

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

Unsourced entirely, only source is the Golden Road fansite. No way could any of this indiscriminate trivia ever be sourced. Survived a bundle AFD in 2007 with no consensus. Tagged for sources since 11/07. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The_Price_Is_Right_(U.S._game_show), it is not notable enough for its own article UltraMagnus^speak 11:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The detail of this, already in Golden Road fansite, is more appropriate for the Price Is Right Wiki. It isn't Wikipedia's function to duplicate a fan site. For all of Bob Barker's popularity, I'm not aware that this is considered part of pop culture. The bargain bar, to my knowledge, is not notable by itself. Mandsford (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any Number[edit]

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

Unsourced entirely, only source is the Golden Road fansite. No way could any of this indiscriminate trivia ever be sourced. Survived a bundle AFD in 2007 with no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The_Price_Is_Right_(U.S._game_show), it is not notable enough for its own article UltraMagnus^speak 11:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure notability is the issue here since it was the first game ever played. I think it's more the lack of sourcing. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 07:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I deplore these articles that are a direct copy from a fansite, and it's not Wikipedia's job to be the backup for that site. It's possible that this staple of the Price is Right might be recognizable enough to merit its own article -- it's the game where no number is used more than once, and there are ten digits to fill in on the board. I didn't know what it was called. Mandsford (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Naqvi[edit]

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

Subject utterly fails WP:PROF. Le Docteur (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of all of the criteria at WP:PROF, only WP:PROF#C1 would seem to be potentially disputable. Of the subject's 26 papers listed on MathSciNet, he sole author of only one of them (MR 1743063) which has not been cited anywhere in the literature or math reviews. Of the remaining 25 papers, all of which were published with coauthors, I count only 12 citations from the literature (a few more if you count reviews). Many of these are from other papers by coauthors, though. For instance, the one paper that accrued the most citations was:

Larsen, Finn; Naqvi, Asad; Terashima, Seiji (2003), "Rolling tachyons and decaying branes", Journal of High Energy Physics. A SISSA Journal (2): 039, 20, ISSN 1126-6708, MR 1976985

which has a total of 3 citations, two of which are from papers subsequently published by coauthors. I conclude that the subject has had insufficient impact to meet WP:PROF#C1. Le Docteur (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. MathSciNet citation counts tend to be low especially in peripheral areas to mathematics (he is a physicist). The Google scholar citation counts are more respectable: 134 cites for "Rolling tachyons and decaying branes", 120 for "Giant gravitons in conformal field theory", 94 for "Space-time orbifold: A toy model for a cosmological singularity", etc. I think that's enough for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. As well, I think it can be helpful to be less judgemental of non-western researchers in order to counter Wikipedia's heavy western bias. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted by David Eppstein GS cites are reasonable: top cites 134, 120, 94, 73 70.... h index = 16. GS cites are mostly to the physics Arxiv versions of papers but papers have been published in refereed journals also. GS cites may be better in this case as WoS and Scopus don't cite the Arxiv (correct me if I am wrong). The Arxiv, despite its defects, is a commendable attempt to make knowledge open source and break the stranglehold of commercial publishers. Notability is obtained here even without appeal to Western bias. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete I'm hesitant, using Xxanthippe's criteria. An h index of 16 is below what is considered "professor" level, according to our h-index article. Here, I am reverting to the much older and more informal criterion of "more notable than the average professor." Given that, with the exception of one year in Pakistan, his academic career has been entirely in the West (MIT, UPenn, Amsterdam, Wales, IAS), I don't think we should give any special consideration due to western-centric biases. Ray^Talk 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how the term "professor" is used. It could refer to all ranks of professor in which case "average professor" would refer to the middle ranks of asssociate professor (neglecting any numerical weighting). On the other hand the h index article refers to full professors, the highest rank. It is not unprecedented for associate professors to be found to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, hence weak. By "professor," I meant "full professor." I consider WP:PROF criterion 1 to mean really significant substantive contribution to a field, on a scale comparable to what one might expect from the other criteria (so, basically, a full professor who is a recognized authority in the field). I realize that others may differ in that estimate; I think this is an area where people can differ. I think really promising associate profs can pass, but these are usually exceptional cases, where the prominence I outlined is basically a forgone conclusion in their future. Ray^Talk 05:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per David Eppstein. Kinoq (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ordre Reaux Croix[edit]

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

I have removed the hangon tag because A7 does not apply. However, I have been unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources about Ordre Reaux Croix. A Google News Archive search returns no relevant results, and a Google Books returns an irrelevant passing mention. This topic fails WP:N. Cunard (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martinism. M0RD00R (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless information can be merged, I don't see the value of having a redirect for this target. A redirect should guide readers to more information about the topic. If this topic were to be redirected to Martinism, readers would expect that article to discuss Ordre Reaux Croix. I cannot see how this information can be merged because there are no reliable sources that can verify information about this topic. This page should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have now tried to give new reliable sources, as well as expanding the previous ones, in an attempt to better prove the notability of the ORC.

-The lack of ghits i believe is natural, seeing that the O.R.C. is a 'secret society' and probably have an interest in keeping out of the public eye. In regards to the few references in gbooks, it might be because some of the sources I have recently listed, is not on gbooks as of yet, and also because I belive that the organisation at one point went under a different name (unverifiable at the moment). Nevertheless, I claim that having the ORC as an article on wikipedia would be one of the few ways to raise awareness to its existence, and in turn enable critical reviews of it. Cheers --Ohjay (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide quotes from the books that you are citing in the article? If these quotes are in a non-English language, please translate them. This will help establish notability. Remember, these sources must provide nontrivial (at least several paragraphs) coverage of Ordre Reaux Croix. Passing mentions (one or two sentences long) or sources from Ordre Reaux Croix's website do not help establish notability. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Powered exoskeletons in fiction. Black Kite 00:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power loader (Aliens)[edit]

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

Declined PROD for some reason. Non-notable element of a work of fiction; device used in 2 scenes of 1 film does not warrant its own article. The article gives no indication of notability, is written entirely in-universe, and cites no sources. It is an unsuitable topic for an encyclopedia as it has no potential to ever become a well-rounded, fleshed-out article. The fictional object has no real-world impact or significance outside of the film in which it appears, and any real-world information about its use in the film (as far as props & filming) would take up no more than a few sentences in Aliens (film). However, this article has no such content. IllaZilla (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, deserves no more than a mention, perhaps at Mecha. Hairhorn (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Aliens (film) Article, its a one off element, and the article is a hypershort stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge. The article has no references or real-world information, and the item's role in the plot is already covered in the film article's plot section. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~- I don't have a link, but I saw on Fark within the last week or so, someone built a working load lifter based on the device from the movie. If true, then that certainly indicates some notability. Probably not enough for a full article, but it would take deletion off the table. I'll have to look and see if I can find the article later. (vote changed, source provided, see below) Umbralcorax (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is established through secondary source coverage, not by people building facimiles. And if it's "not enough for a full article", then it certainly doesn't "take deletion off the table". Per our verifiability policy: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Someone building something based on a prop from a movie is not reason enough to justify an independent article about the prop itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
vote changed to Keep- here's the source i was referring to: [24]. The fact that, in the article, "Japanese engineers have taken us one step closer to the robot revolution by developing a machine inspired by the movie Aliens." indicates that some real world notability has been managed. "Not enough for a full article" means that there's "not enough for a full article", not "OH MY GOD WE HAVE TO DELETE THIS NOW!!!!". It means that maybe it should be covered/merged under a different article, but that deletion should not even be remotely considered. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information cannot be merged, as it does not exist in the article Power loader (Aliens) at present. It can certainly be added to Aliens (film), in relation to the design of the prop and the impact of the film's special effects, but it does not demonstrate sufficient notability for a stand-alone article on the prop itself. There is no reason not to delete the prop article in its current state, as it is highly unlikely that a well-rounded encyclopedia article could be written on the topic beyond what could be covered in the film article itself. Per WP:SS, the information should develop first in the parent article before a separate article is considered. By comparison, we used to have separate aritcles on nearly every single gun and vehicle from the film, based on the tenuous claim that independent notability was established because some companies had made model kits of these items. It was determined that in fact they were not notable outside of the film itself, and thus were all redirected to the film article. The existence of a single source giving a tenuous and insufficient claim to notability most certainly does not mean that "deletion should not even be remotely considered". --IllaZilla (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Powered exoskeletons in fiction, which needs sourcing itself. The power loader isn't independently notable, despite the burst of news stories about the new Japanese power loader. I couldn't find anything else that discussing it in more than passing. Fences&Windows 00:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's currently no article at Power loader, so I don't see the point in leaving Power loader (Aliens) as the redirect. The better alternative would be to delete Power loader (Aliens) and create Power loader as a redirect to Powered exoskeletons in fiction. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No Notability asserted Black Kite 00:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chinabounder[edit]

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability having only received trivial coverage from respected secondary sources. MMAJunkie250 (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,an internet phenomena in China.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 02:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Nothing to suggest that he is notable enough for his own article. His blog has only 500,000 hits in a 4 year period and the most talk I can find of him is through obscure blogs. I would expect an interent phenomena to have more hits and more publicity. It only looks like a blog that created some controvesy among a few groups and nothing more.BearShare998 (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability criteria unless Wikiepdia's standards have fallen dangerously since the last time I went on. Bipartisan185 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article is very poorly sourced. Bipartisan185 (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like only semi successful blogger, no where as sucessful as many others. 151.151.21.100 (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Could be interesting by the looks of it. He seems to expose some serious social issues in China, apart from the tales of sex. Colipon+(Talk) 12:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may be interesting but that's not enough to justify a Wikipedia article. MMAJunkie250 (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peloton 3.1[edit]

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

This article is written in Spanish (and is still being edited in the same language) and has not been translated after more than two weeks, as would've been needed for WP:PNT. An IP removed a prod tag, so here is the Afd process. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quickly per WP:SNOW. Not only does the author continue to add more and more Spanish content to the article, he has ignored all reminders I have put on his talk page (which I have used Google Translate to put my reminders in Spanish) about the need to have this article translated. This article has now been in existence for almost three weeks in Spanish on an English encyclopedia - it is time for it to go. Singularity42 (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the English language Wiki. Alatari (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ~~Per above.~~ An article about a season of a show that doesn't have an article. Joe Chill (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article is now translated. Still need to determine notability, etc. In any event, the article needs to be re-named. Singularity42 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would put a comment here, but Joe Chill says what I was gonna say (almost verbatim, actually). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a similar stub Pelotón III, dealing with another season of that series. Even if this article Peloton 3.1 has now been translated, I see no reason why single seasons of a show should be covered when there is no main article at all. De728631 (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current translation is clearly automated, no legitimate translation would use the phrase "unknown internet postulated". As stated above, the show needs its own article before creating season articles. It's difficult to establish notability as even the Spanish wiki version is unreferenced. Sarilox (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above, the show itself needs to have an article and establish its notability. Articles for individual seasons exist as forks of the main article - a long-running show would quickly have an unreadable article otherwise - so we need to start there. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I left a keep note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pelotón III. Massive coverage in RS. Show is clearly notable. Why not userfy the content per WP:PRESERVE invoking AGF, instead of erasing the stuff. Why are alternatives to deletion not considered? Power.corrupts (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin (or any admin) could userfy the content at the author's request, and I would have no objection to that (might even be the one to do it, if asked). I think it would be better to start a new article for the show, from scratch, and then bring in content on the seasons, but whatever works is fine. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfying in this case is not very likely to be effective. This article was nominated for deletion in the first place because the author is seemingly unable or unwilling to contribute his article in English and has not reacted whatsoever to any of the comments and requests on his user talk page. So even if the show is notable per se I think we should not leave it to this particular author to prepare the English Wikipedia article. De728631 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem? The article was not worked on for two weeks. It was in Spanish (no longer). There is no WP:DEADLINE. Clearly notable. The similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pelotón III seems to pass, so keep or merge the stuff there. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Terrana (author)[edit]

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

nn author of vanity press book Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postal Service (novel) ccwaters (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Boleyn3 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete The author wrote on many occasions for the HAWK Magazine, a publication of the US Army during the Vietnam War. He has been published in the LA Times and The Virginian Pilot. This is his debut novel, so it's not receiving national attention yet, but it is being well received locally and distribution is starting in local post offices. Due to the connections to Charles Bukowski's 1971 book, it is believed this will reach national attention very soon. I would ask that deletion of this article and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postal Service (novel) be delayed for a few weeks. Dpt2000 (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While I'm sympathetic to the idea that the novel was just published (October 9, just a month ago), I believe we have it backward, here. We write the article when the subject is notable, not in anticipation of the subject becoming notable. If the novel takes off, picks up a professional publisher, and gets some media attention, then an article might be in order - but we're not there yet, so this article is premature. Additional sources about the author could change that, but right now the notability claims are tied entirely to the new novel, which doesn't carry. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline speedy, because I do not consider having published a vanity-press book as a plausible claim to notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postal Service (novel)[edit]

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

non notable vanity press book [25], see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Terrana (author) ccwaters (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: It's being read and the review is pending in The Virginian Pilot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 1) pending reviews have no value in WP:BK. 2) That would only be 1 review. 3) According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Terrana (author), the author has a relationship to that newspaper and therefore that review could not be considered an independent source. 4) Are you Dpt2000? ccwaters (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Yes, that comment was made by myself before I had logged in. It was not my intention to make it appear to have multiple votes to not delete. I was rushing to comment as I did not know how quickily the entry would be deleted. Once logged in I did not want to delete a previous entry. My apologies. Dpt2000 (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: I think it is premature to delete this article. The book was just published and is pending several reviews that will add to its notability. Dpt2000 (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While I'm sympathetic to the idea that the novel was just published (October 9, just a month ago), I believe we have it backward, here. We write the article when the subject is notable, not in anticipation of the subject becoming notable. If the novel takes off, picks up a professional publisher, and gets some media attention, then an article might be in order - but we're not there yet, so this article is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BK requirements at this time. However, with future reviews, the article can return later. Warrah (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the last few years here, I think there's been one vanity press book that actually turned out to be notable. Just one. Typically a notable fictional work will have reviews by the first month if it is every going to have them. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Harsh, but honest. I suppose that can be called motivation to the author.

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Skomorokh, barbarian 05:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz hands[edit]

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

Uneasy mixture of a dictionary definition and "how-to" manual with no real content. Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just cleaned it up some, don't ask me why, but besides a standard dance position/gesture I think it's actually a fairly notable pop meme. Run Google images if nothing else. I noticed the word "campy" coming up from time to time, so I'll add a ref for that as well. Mackan79 (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've done a good job with that, I'm almost inclined to withdraw this nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... in fact I will. Nice job. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Mackan79 has done a great job redoing this article, should definitely be kept now, as is. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the ironclad arguments that Malleus so eloquently set out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pissing contest. Tarc (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyone who wants to expand the article further has plenty of source material to play with: [26]. Warrah (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rather than go through the convolutions of a non-admin closure and probably get it all wrong, I'll just say here that Macken79's excellent work has changed my mind about this article, and I'd like this AfD closed as a keep. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jazz hands is an extremely common gesture used in show choirs, dance choirs. It's often seen in pop culture and musicals, and the characters even address it by name. The latest media to show off jazz hands is the season premiere episode of Glee, on Fox television.--Stevevance (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure it's a "gesture," actually, as the article frames it. Basically it's just the term for when you splay your fingers, palms out. It's a little silly to call it a "gesture," or even a "move" or "position," really. I think that's what's amusing about it: "Look Ma, I'm doing jazz hands!" I just tried to clear that up a little. Mackan79 (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koornk[edit]

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

Delete per WP:WEB. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 20:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've heard of this site, but it definitely fails the requirements of WP:WEB. Basically just a Twitter clone. Steven Walling 05:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:WEB per not having enough non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 18:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Hamels[edit]

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

No evidence that this individual meets the general notability guideline. Also no evidence of reliable, third-party sources that focus specifically on this person, rather than simply mention her in passing in the context of other events or people. *** Crotalus *** 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Past articles about reality show contestants with no other claim to fame have always been deleted. This is no different. Nightscream (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and or merge with Cole Hamels, there's enough sourceable information to support it being around in some form, although maybe not as a standalone article. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as she is not really notable beyond appearing on Survivor. Any useful additional information could be included on Cole Hamels. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability after Survivor. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-Weak Delete - Not much to add to the reasons above. There's just enough source material to reference it, but not to establish notability after this Survivor thing, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 21:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Paul H.J. Kim[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS. MuffledThud (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in this BLP reads shows any real notability. I'd change my mind if it can be verified by a reliable source that Kim is really an "elder", that such a position is equivalent to a bishop or archdeacon, and that his church actually has 3/4 million members. Otherwise, this is spam. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Even if he is an "elder" in a large church that means nothing. I am an elder in my church but that doesn't make me notable. Base the decision on his business career, or lack of it, which I am not competent to judge. In any case, if keeping, change the name of the article. "Dr." has no place in article titles, it should be simply "Paul H.J. Kim". --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

P.S. Reading his article, I can find no justification for calling him "Dr." in the first place. He has a B.A. degree and a J.D. degree. Lawyers, even with a J.D. degree, are not generally referred to as "Dr." --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

By the way, while we are evaluating this page for deletion, we should also evaluate the similar page for his business partner, Ken Eldred (linked from Kim's page). Eldred also seems non-notable. He is cited for founding companies similar to those on the Kim page and for his religious activities. The two articles are so similar and so closely related that the same decision should be made for both IMO. I'm not going to Nominate For Deletion because I'm not skilled at that stuff, but I suggest someone else do it - and link the two discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2009 (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 Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big deal productions[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable film production company... no evidence that they pass WP:CORP... Adolphus79 (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Has already been speedily deleted four times within the last few days under WP:CSD#G11 (twice), WP:CSD#G12, and WP:CSD#A3. The article is no longer unambiguous promotion, copyvio, or lacking sufficient content; however, I still believe it ought to be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 as an article about a company that does not assert that company's notability. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jewish views of marriage. There is a broad consensus to merge this article, but there is quite a bit of disagreement as to a target article. Therefore, I'm choosing a random placeholder target, but this should definitely be discussed outside of this AfD. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marriageable age in Judaism[edit]

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

Content fork, weak notability independent of the high level topics. The unique contents of this page are too limited to justify on its own. The information on marriageable age belongs in Jewish marriage (or a high level fork of that article into Jewish marriage customs and Jewish marriage law, though that's purely speculative) and discussion of "underage" marriages belongs in Child marriage in Judaism. Many arguments on this have been laid out on Talk:Child marriage in Judaism. If there ends up being a surplus of marriageable age information that clutters the Jewish marriage article excessively, then I would support recreating this page at that time, but right now it is fragmenting content too much for too little gain. ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Adding obvious vote. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is NOT a content fork. There is no rival article. Nominator has confused the term 'content fork' with 'sub article'. Newman Luke (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In Jewish law, a 'damsel' - who was subject to her father's control of her marriage - could be up to 35 years old, and is not necessarily 'underage', and therefore not the same thing as 'child marriage'. Newman Luke (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a new article, on a clearly notable topic - which the nominator above admits ("I would support recreating this page at that time...."). Its been in existence for less than 4 hours, and I really don't see what the rush to delete is. Newman Luke (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Newman Luke (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I ask that someone corrects me if I am wrong but WP:SYNTH, WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, (perhaps WP:POV?) and per nom. Quite fascinating in fact, I don't think I've seen anything like this on WP until now. The article is based almost 100% on the Talmud which is no doubt a 100% awesome WP:RS but given the lack of a general template of 'marriageable age in ______' and the fact that virtually no outside 3rd party(?) source is used, I don't see how this can stay. --Shuki (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - point of fact. The article is principally based on the Jewish Encyclopedia article Majority; the full Jewish Encyclopedia article is visible here. For future reference, its the most cited reference in the list of article references, if you'd care to check. Newman Luke (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this info, but for some reason, this is not convincing. I still say delete this article and do not oppose using this info elsewhere. --Shuki (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This isn't a large enough subject to cover in it's own article. ~~Move the material into Jewish marriage, Marriageable age, an article on "Culture of Judaism" or "Religion and marriage" like the Religion and sexuality is organized.~~ The Marriageable age article reads just like a list and not an encyclopedic entry. The current contents could be moved to [[age of marriage by country]] and then various topics relating to the age of marriage expanded. The marriageable age in Judaism can be moved in along with headings for other religions (Hindu and Muslim scriptures set limits on age of marriage) and specific laws, such as the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registration of Marriages or English Common Law, limiting the age of marriage. A discussion on age of majority and age of consent relation to age of marriage should be included. Alatari (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Child marriage in Judaism. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. If it must be merged, it would be more logical to merge it the other way round - to merge the Child marriage in Judaism article into this article. Newman Luke (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearian. I don't even care under which title the merged article will reside. Both articles contain valid, notable information, and I'd hate to see any of the content lost, but there is a large overlap between the two. Owen× ☎ 23:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, remove all content that seems designed to make Judaism look backward. JFW | T@lk 22:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe this is intended to make Judaism look backward in any way. While more could be done to point out that the biblical laws have long since been discarded through interpretation (much like many of the other questionable rules from the Torah), this is not an indictment of the article as a whole. Judaism has a history stretching back 2000-4000 years (depending on how you define the religion; Judaism pre-70 C.E. and post-70 C.E. are very different). The fact that it had some odd rules over a thousand years ago is not an attack, it's a genuinely interesting piece of historical information. Rabbis study this sort of thing for years as part of their training, and while I'm sure anti-Semites might try and use this sort of information to prove a point, that's not sufficient justification for censorship. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if it had been my intent to make Judaism look backward, I would have left out all the stuff about mi'un (annulment rights, during child marriage), and the effective suppression of it. Christian England in the 12th century had people legally having sex with 12 year olds - later even just 10 year olds; mentioning this would not be an attempt to make Christians in modern England look backward. That's just rediculous. Newman Luke (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage. It's a valid topic but does not need an article on its own quite yet, otherwise this could lead to redundant forks like Ritual observance age in Judaism, Divorcable age in Judaism; Child rearing age in Judaism; Sexual age in Judaism or even Bachelorhood in Judaism, all interesting but not really worthy of separate articles. So one needs to stay focused and not let the topic splatter all over the place. IZAK (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related comment. I think your point about leading to redundant forks fails very obviously. Marriageable age is a distinct recognised sociological/legal thing, whereas divorceable age, and child rearing age are not. In regards to sexual age, perhaps you mean age of consent? However, since Jewish rabbinic law says that sexual intercourse = betrothal, except where its adultery, I'm not sure that age of consent could ever be distinguished from marriageable age, in regards to Judaism. Newman Luke (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newman: You are confusing PRACTICAL Judaism with discussions in theoretics. Do note that "Wikipedia is not a yeshiva or a theological seminary nor is it a law school" and therefore hypothetical constructs need to be very carefully handled and not be made into definitive articles in violation of WP:MADEUP. Wikipedia's focus is much more on the PRACTICE, PRACTICALITY and REALITY of Judaism, not on theoretical discussions of illegitimate pilpul. Especailly in today's day and age, none of the streams of Judaism says or accepts sexual intercourse as sufficient for "marriage" in any way -- on the contrary such behavior is forbidden and regarded by scholars of the Talmud as sexually immoral, so that therefore your article will only lead to distortions and not help with any understanidng of the practical accepted laws of Judaism and the way its practiced by ALL Jews who observe Judaism TODAY and for the last few centuries. Therefore you are way off balance here because the notion of a "marriageable age" in Judaism has NOTHING to do with normative Judaism today. Yes, there are many HYPOTHETICAL and THEORETICAL notions posed and tossed about in the Talmud and Torah, many sounding radical, but they are not practiced by any stream of modern-day Judaism in any way shape size or form. Once upon a time Jews rode camels in the Middle East like everybody else, and just as in surrounding societies females were married off by their parents at young ages, so it's no news to focus on Jews in this regard when you can do it with ANY group. But the way you are going about presenting this material, and other topics of controversy in violation of WP:NOR makes it very evident that you have more in mind than just the raw topic while skating on thin ice when it comes to violating WP:LIBEL. To illustrate my point, ask yourself how many articles are there about Marriageable age in Islam; Marriageable age in Hinduism; Marriageable age in atheism; Marriageable age in Christianity; Marriageable age in Shintoism etc etc etc ad absurdum? Think it over. IZAK (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was my proposal above to create a section on marriageable age topic on Hinduism, Islam, various laws around the world and through history IN the Marriageable age article. As it stands now it's just a list of ages by country which could be moved to an article marriageable age by country. I'm surprised this topic hasn't been covered in Wikipedia across religions, societies, common law and history. I make no claims to anyone's motivations. It seems noteworthy and an interesting subject to archaeologists, sociologists and anthropologists. Alatari (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is not a How-to guide. Therefore it is NOT focused primarily on the Practice, Practicality, and Reality. On the other hand Wikipedia content should encompass not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources - see WP:RNPOV. If there are notions tossed about in the Talmud and Torah, they are worth noting - an article wouldn't be encyclopedic without mentioning them. Indeed Jews used to ride camels. But that's worth noting in wikipedia. Perhaps you want to claim that Jewish practices given in the talmud are copied from arabic /middle eastern culture, but that's really not an neutral thing to say, and its an extremely controversial viewpoint, which I'm fairly sure most Orthodox Jews would disagree with. It may be that marriageable age is not normative today. But to mention that in an article you need a reliable source that claims this is the case for all Jews everywhere, not just Orthodox Jews in America, the UK, and Israel, but also Jews of all denominations, in all parts of the world, including the Cochin Jews still in Cochin, the Yemenite Jews still in Yemen, etc. Have you got such a source? If so, there's nothing stopping you from adding it to the article in an appropriate location, if not, stop making opinionated claims. Claiming that a 19th century Jewish Encyclopedia - the Jewish Encyclopedia in fact - is libellous to modern Judaism is really going a bit far. As for articles about other religions, do you have sources? The reason I haven't added anything about Marriageable age in Hinduism, in Christianity, in Islam, is because the Jewish Encyclopedia, which I was using as the source, does not mention them - if you can find a source there's nothing stopping you from creating these articles. Don't hope the house will build itself, and don't expect me to add material that I don't have a source for.Newman Luke (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newman, all this is marvelous, however on balance, when looking at the totality and direction of your editing and article-creation you definitely seem to be veering into controversy that will lead to edit warring as has happened a few times already. You constantly fail to seek WP:CONSENSUS when it is obviuous you know that your slash and burn editing will make other editors anxious and take you to task as has happened a few times already. You need to take WP:CHILL and not come with your editorial scalpel to demolish and de-construct by revising in your WP:POV way what has been built up over many years through careful editing. No one objects to the sources you cite, it is how you are going about matters that is raising alarm bells all over the place with responsible Judaic editors. I am not arguing with your sources, but I am saying that the way you cut and chop and run roughshod over key topics in Judaism articles leaves much to be desired as anyone reviewing your edit history and the ensuing talks with Judaic editors shows. Am I starting to make myself clearer? IZAK (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an appalling, and unwiki-like attitude to take. Wikipedia is NOT the personal fifedom of Judaic editors - a group of people that you appear to suggest includes yourself. It is not for such people to determine who is or isn't responsible. Wikipedia is not ruled by a cabal. Judaic editors (whatever that might mean) cannot dictate anything to the rest of us (whoever that might mean).

My editorial scalpel has edited articles that did not previously exist. There is no circumstance under which that could legitimately be called demoli[tion] or de-construct[ion] or revising. Neither can the creation of new articles be legitimately considered cut[ting] or chop[ping] or run[ning] roughshod over key topics. Please show good faith, and stop throwing libellous accusations around.

As for edit warring. I think you'll find that was a dispute over the legitimacy of a copyvio accusation, which was resolved - amicably, I might add - when a third party pointed out to the other editor that the source was public domain (due to its age), the other editor admitting fault.

And I really don't know what you are on about when you talk about what has been built up over many years by careful editing. You make it sound like some glass house of cards, too delicate to be touched by mortal hands. Or perhaps you mean that its just the way you like it, and you don't want anyone to change that. But wikipedia is a work in progress it is not finished. You don't own the articles, nor do you have any right to claim ownership.

If anything it is you who need to take WP:CHILL. There was no heat until you started bandying accusations around against me. It is you who constantly fail to show good faith, or civility. I ask you to show some. There are, after all, sanctions that can be made against people who consistently fail to show good faith or civility. Perhaps you'd best go and have a cup of tea and a sit down before engaging with me again.

Newman Luke (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article into the other relevant articles as fit. Debresser (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so far, those wanting to merge it have proposed various alternatives:
- into Jewish views of marriage. The problem with this is space. Although the article there is currently a reasonable size, and has unnecessary depth about the get (as this already has a sub article), there is a large amount of coverage missing (eg. divorce rights (apart from get and agunah), rules for remarriage, forbidden relationships - incest, mamzers, rules for priests, etc. -, polygyny vs. monogamy, and coverage of actual views about marriage as a thing; the latter being what the title of the article suggests it should contain more than anything. See Talk:Child marriage in Judaism for details). There basically won't be room in the long term at this article for sufficient depth about marriageable age.
- into Child marriage in Judaism. There is a certain logic to this. However, it would be an awkward fit for material about rabbinic attitudes to age disparity in adult-adult marriage, or about pressure into getting married before the age of 20 ('adult' roughly being the age of 13 and over), and penalties, such as having your penis chopped off (a single Talmudic opinion proposes this), if you don't. It would also be an awkward fit for historic statistics about popular ages for Jews to get married.
- into Marriageable age, having first moved most of the content currently at that article into List of marriageable age by country (or similar). This is a fairly reasonable suggestion. However, at the moment if this was done the Marriageable age article would be almost entirely about Judaism. I understand another user is currently gathering sources about other religions, but there just isn't any content at present about them.

Newman Luke (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sources for Hinduism and Islam and the UN laws are allready in Wikipedia. There are people in the Islam and Hindu projects I'll send my edits to. Alatari (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. ( merge into Child marriage in Judaism, which is about the same topic. The material in the article is relevant, and there;'s a lot more subsequent discussion to add over the centuries. The idea that there writing =of this article shows a focus on I totally disagree with IZAK that "Wikipedia's focus is much more on the PRACTICE, PRACTICALITY and REALITY of Judaism, " -- Wikipedia deals with both current and historical aspects, and just like in other subjects is in fact not to be used as a guide to the practice of religion--not that I can imagine any actual religious Jew in any tradition doing so. The age of marriage and other marriage laws in early Judaism are ,not surprisingly, not dissimilar to other traditions of the period and culture areas. The idea that we would " remove all content that seems designed to make Judaism look backward" is absurd--we simply rewrite to NPOV--Judaism's long history of continuing reinterpretation of its historic texts is one of the most fascinating things about the religion. Not that this article is such--I find it incredible that an explanation of its secondary sourcing should be brushed off so quickly. The various suggestions for merging will decrease the content of the article, and are going the the opposite direction entirely. Any one who wants to know my own religious views can ask me privately, but I am quite disturbed at the various attempts to decrease the detailed coverage of material on the traditional parts of this and other religions. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, you are latching on to some of my later observations and discussions and missing the fact that I voted to "Keep" this article but by merging it with the main article about Judaism and marriage at Jewish views of marriage. No matter how you slice it, the basic point remains that there is good reason to apply to this article Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage otherwise it's just a blatant fork. I am NOT saying to delete it, it's just not strong enough to stand on its own, asside from its tendentious and suspicious set up (meaning with an obvious undertone of hostility to Torah Judaism). In addition it was highly controversial to spin off the article from its original moorings at Age of majority in Judaism when there should have been more discussion in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. These kinds of moves by Newman Luke (talk · contribs) only breed suspicioun and create the kind of atmosphere you see taking shape here. No one is afraid of writing up articles about any aspect of Judaism, but a style of writing and editing that is subversive and meant to show Judaism in a negative or abhorant light should be opposed for obvious reasons. IZAK (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously escaped your notice that I wrote Age of majority in Judaism. I span it off because age of majority is not the same thing as marriageable age. You will note that no-one else had edited Age of majority in Judaism (besides correcting a couple of typos, and adjusting the capitalisation of the article title) before I did this. You don't need consensus to change an article you've only just created and no-one else has edited. To view the extraction as being a violation of consensus and having subversive intent is really quite distrustful. Newman Luke (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admins. IZAK has highlighted the phrase merge and redirect in two distinct places in this AfD. Newman Luke (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newman, the admins are not retarded, they can see that I was using a reference in my response to User:DGG, please do not be obtuse. I have watched your editing and said nothing to you for close to a year so you cannot now claim that I doubt your so-called "good faith" efforts. But now matters have reached critical mass as you reveal your hand and agenda with your latest batch of creations (three nominated for deletion, and not by me) that have not just me but many other editors up in arms about what the heck your real goal is exactly with all the articles pertaining to Judaism that are making people cringe and want to delete them. Come clean. Do you want to destroy everything and just plop down your revisionist and seemingly abhorant veiws of Judaism and especially of Orthodox and Torah Judaism (based on your own admissions on your talk page) as you go about creating and editing articles that ONLY seems to focus on negative and distateful features of Judaism? Have you thought of creating positive articles for a change about Music by teenagers in Judaism or Poetry by Jewish women or how about proving your bona fides by creating something like Israeli Jewish children and not just the slash and burn attitude you favor? You know, once the imagination runs wild it can be used creatively and not just destructively. IZAK (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Izak, I believe I did give the argument against merging into an overgeneral article, but I have altered my !vote upon a check of the Child Marriage in Judaism article, which is after all superior to the present one. The details of what constitutes a Jewish marriage are the subject of several tractates of the Talmud, and the various factors are appropriate for separate consideration. I think the motivation of the author quite irrelevant to the consideration of whether than can be a Wikipedia article based on the subject. The ed.who started it is openly not sympathetic to Orthodox Judaism; you openly are supportive of it; We write articles not from a basis of either hostility of sympathy. I do not find the subject intrinsically either negative or distasteful; it is true that those who do not understand the history of the religion could so consider it, but the answer is not to suppress discussion of it but to present it properly. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Izak, does Judaism have something specific to itself to say about music by teenagers? As far as I'm aware it does not. Do Jewish women intrinsically write poetry in a way that differs from other people? I think not, indeed the claim would be pure bigotry. Is there something different about Israeli Jewish children than other Jewish children and other Israelis, or other Israeli children and other Jews? I think the answer is probably no. You are showing bad faith by even suggesting it. On the other hand there is something distinct about marriageable age in Judaism. Newman Luke (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Age of majority in Judaism. --Whoosit (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this as a reasonable

Keep. Basically, I agree with Newman Luke's very first comment. Notability has already been established with legitimate sources, and it seems as if there is room for it to grow in the future. And the AFD was proposed within mere hours of the article being made, which is a blatant violation of Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An immediate AfD is my experience in working on new articles. Part of the creation/deletion forces at work on our GREAT WORK! Alatari (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Age of majority in Judaism. Do not merge with Jewish views of marriage, which is a better focus, a better length and a better shape as it is, without the detail contained in this article, which should be preserved somewhere in Wikipedia but not there. Jheald (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage; this info. logically belongs there. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jewish views of marriage together with Child Marriage in Judaism which is nominated elsewhere on Afd. The subject of "marriageable age" is in itself notable, as can be seen in Marriageable age, but there is no reason to have a whole article on this subject, especially since it largely about child marriage, which has its own article Child Marriage in Judaism. Just take care that the merge be executed by somebody knowledgable and serious. If needed, approach me. Debresser (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge with one of the other articles, either Age of Majority or Child Marriage. I'm sure someone can figure out an intelligent plan. (Maybe best to resist the urge to push it into the main Jewish Marriage article, simply because that article will just get too long. ) Good luck. —Dfass (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jewish views of marriage' where the content of this article would be placed in appropriate context. Alansohn (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage. All of these subarticles should be merged into appropriate sections, with appropriate weightings, into the parent article. Avi (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Free and Open Source Software Law Review[edit]

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

New journal, no independent sources establishing notability. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Prod removed with justification " I expect sources can be found or will soon be findable" (see WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Article creation premature, time only will tell whether this journal will become notable. Crusio (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too new to have attracted much notability yet; no sign of passing Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with some reluctance. I hope the Journal becomes notable soon, but I can't find any evidence of it. If it gets up steam and has a few issues, has some articles that get cited in other journals or maybe even an court opinion, that'd be great. But so far, the only mentions I can find of it are reports that ultimately stem only from the Journal's own announcement of its first issue. I suggest that the authoring editor WP:USERFY a current copy for re-creation if it every becomes appropriate. TJRC (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy The Zoo[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Article's creator claims notability on the article's talk page, but all sources are local (Nashville, TN) media outlets or blogs --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 19:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the source for the national award is a local source, since the event was held in Nashville, TN. But the station (national radio station WBUZ (102.9 FM, "The Buzz") is broadcasted nation wide. It meets the notability requirements.

Theultravisitor (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did you mean a radio network like Clear Channel? No individual radio station is broadcast nationwide. — Gwalla | Talk 22:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can find no coverage from a WP:RS, WBUZ (FM) is a local Nashville (actually LaVergne) station, it can be heard over the internet nationwide but so can just about any station. Can find nothing else that would support WP:BAND. J04n(talk page) 01:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "It can be heard over the internet nationwide but so can just about any station." Theultravisitor (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BAND criteria #11 and #12 specifically state "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" and "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." Streaming on the Internet does not make WBUZ a national network: it is a single station, so Enjoy The Zoo doesn't qualify under either of these criteria. — Gwalla | Talk 19:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing' Joe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Boxing' Joe

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

WP:HOAX: unreferenced, can find nothing about it online, maintenance tags repeatedly removed. MuffledThud (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If its a movie that's going to be released in 2009, as the article states (that is to say, within a month and a half, minimum) and had those celebs/people in it, there would probably be something on Google, but I can't find anything pertaining to this movie. Even if it's not a hoax (though it seems like it probably is), the lack of other coverage would start to shift into WP:CRYSTAL (unreleased) territory or other issues. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant hoax. Considering the "names" claimed to be involved, there would be something written about this somewheres... and there isn't. After a diligent search, it seems like a CSD:G3 to me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although Friedberg and Seltzer crank out awful movies pretty fast, even if this was a factual article no studio ever releases a film like this so late in the year (F&S films are usually out between February and April). This sounds like a pretty obvious hoax, and somehow they would 'creatively' title this Boxing Movie instead. The creating editor's history is also filled with speedies and successful AfD's all over the place. Nate • (chatter) 03:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant hoax.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 18:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Limited participation, but there's no real doubt as to where consensus lies. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balance Game (2000s)[edit]

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

Unsourced entirely, only source is the Golden Road fansite. No way could any of this indiscriminate trivia ever be sourced. Survived a bundle AFD in 2007 with no consensus. Tagged for lack of sources since 11/07. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The_Price_Is_Right_(U.S._game_show), it is not notable enough for its own article UltraMagnus^speak 11:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The detail of this, already in Golden Road fansite, is more appropriate for the Price Is Right Wiki. It isn't Wikipedia's function to duplicate a fan site. The "balance game", to my knowledge, is not notable by itself. Mandsford (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 17:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another unnotable Price is Right pricing game; transwiki and delete as it has not significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IFA Premiership -- Y not? 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast and District League[edit]

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

A league of this name never existed. It is completely unreferenced. Mooretwin (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first of the Google Books hits helpfully linked above says that such a league did exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this team appear to play in this apparently non-existent league, as do 29 other clubs...if it is a hoax then these guys are in deep! Giant Snowman 12:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it appears to be a futsal league. Giant Snowman 12:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the first link is to a chess league. The article purports to be about a football league. The league linked to by GiantSnowman would fail notability guidelines and - as is pointed out - appears to be a futsal league. The article purported to be about a senior league in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Mooretwin (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually as it stands, the article seems to merely imply that this name was a nickname used in some quarters for what was actually called the Irish Football League. If that's the case I don't think we need a separate article for an alternate name for a league for which we already have an article under the correct name..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first Google web link is to a chess league, but I said Google Books, the first hit being this. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aah, that refers to a temporary wartime league which replaced the Irish League during the First World War. The article in question here purports to be about a name given to the Irish League in its early years. Mooretwin (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has only purported to be that since you edited it to say that. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So what do you think the article is about? Mooretwin (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IFA Premiership as per ChrisTheDude, looks to be two articles for the same thing. Giant Snowman 00:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 17:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IFA Premiership If all it is is an old name for the current league then surely there's no need for it. Fionnsci (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not even an old name. The current league was never known by this name. There was, however, a wartime league from 1915-19 under this name, separate from the Irish League, and the article name should be reserved for any future article about that. Mooretwin (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IFA Premiership, per above.--Pink Bull 17:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The main ground proposed for deletion here is notability. Notability is the standard which topics must meet to justify standalone articles; the non-notability of items in a list is not a relevant standard according to which to judge the list itself. Nor is merging and deleting an acceptable outcome. Skomorokh, barbarian 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orthodox parishes in Alaska[edit]

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

These fail WP:NOTDIR. The majority of churches in these lists are in no way notable, and for the few that are, we have relevant categories (Category:Churches in Washington, D.C., Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in California, etc.) and even dedicated articles such as Orthodox Church in Hawaii. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Keep First, because that the individual churches may not be individually notable does not mean that they are inappropriate content for at least a list entry. Second , categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for almost all topics with individual elements, if there is a category, there should be a list. Incidentally, i suspect that most of the ones in Alaska would turn out to be historically notable if properly investigated, for either the parish as such or the building. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, let's pick through this. For convenience, let's assume the only notable entries are cathedrals and churches that already have articles. We get 0 of 7 notable entries for Arkansas and Hawaii, 4 of 31 for the DC area, 10 of 157 for California, and 8 (5 cathedrals and 3 parishes with articles) for Alaska. Now, even if a few more of these were notable (and remember, WP:BURDEN requires proof of notability at hand, not hypotheses of what would turn up "if properly investigated"), we'd still be left with five lists of largely non-notable entities, of directory material. As for your boilerplate argument on the function of an encyclopedia, there's a flaw. Lists by definition present notable subjects, not ones that "may not be individually notable". See WP:LIST: "An Index of articles page presents an alphabetical list of articles related to the subject of the index... Lists contain internally linked terms". I could support a List of Eastern Orthodox churches in the United States, with state-by-state lists of actually notable ones (ie, ones with articles), but this is a step too far. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parishcruft. These are NN congregations - what's next List of fast food eateries in YOURSTATE or List of ATMs in Manhattan.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Orthodox parishes in Alaska are likely to have a lot of history, since Alaska was once a Russian possession and the Russian Orthodox Church was then Russia's established church. Some of the parishes were established under Russian rule, so they have been around a long time. The absence of an article is not a proof of non-notablity; it simply means that nobody has gotten around to writing an article on the topic yet. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BURDEN requires positive proof of notability, not speculation. I also note you say nothing about the Arkansas, California, Hawaii and DC lists. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Eastmain on this. Hundreds of years of history there. I also have nothing to say about the other states. Don't bundle nominations. Abductive (reasoning) 05:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.

Delete the one for Hawaii, after merging into the Orthodox Church in Hawaii article. It already has a list, so just merge that section. Note the link in the Orthodox Church in Hawaii is not even working! I might have time to work on this tomorrow. The most historic is probably the one associated with Kauaʻi due to Russian Fort Elizabeth. W Nowicki (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some broken links in Orthodox Church in Hawaii and merged the lists, so the List of Orthodox parishes in Hawaii should be deleted now. Then you can decide on the others. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge any good information into existing "Orthodox Church in..." articles. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List can be used as an incubator for notable material yet to be published, as noted above. --Pink Bull 17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of Orthodox parishes in Alaska per Eastman, et al, as historically interesting. The others don't seem to be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Delete - There is a clear consensus that the article is a synthesis of reports that create an article that is not encyclopedic - Peripitus (Talk) 03:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party immigration scandal[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not exist – there is no such thing known as “Labour Party immigration scandal”. For a couple of days there were a couple of media reports picking up on a purported admission by a former no10 speechwriter about one small aspect of UK immigration policy. Briefly the topic fed into the usual political and media knockabout, which two days later moved on to something else, as usual. WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:NOTABILITY (quote –“ it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability”) surely apply here. We do not need or deserve individual articles detailing every criticism of some aspect of every government’s policy or of a party’s policy platform. Nor do we need a running commentary on the cut and thrust of daily politics in every country.

The page exists, it would seem, simply to provide a platform for tabloid outrage and to push the views of editors who believe that the Labour government’s immigration policy is part of some nefarious conspiracy of some sort, contrary to WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. Content has also been added to the page above and beyond anything to do with the original alleged “scandal”, eg the two sections here, presumably in a bid to push that view yet further. Those who questioned whether this brief minor spat needs a whole page to itself, as opposed to a brief passing mention in a wider encylopedic entry about immigration into the UK (such a page already exists), were told that the article is needed because “all the naive liberal-leftists have a hard time swallowing how disgracefully they have been violated and used for political gains by a corrupt political elite”, here, and that they were engaged in a “left wing attempt at a cover up job” and that this is “not the Soviet Union”, here. Yes, there are sources for most of the material, but that does not of itself confer notability, and of course they mostly reflect a couple of days of news reporting, primarily in tabloids such as the Daily Mail and Daily Express. Nickhh (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is basically original research presenting a far right conspiracy theory that "the Labour Party... set about a deliberate policy of encouraging mass third world immigration, to socially engineer a multicultural society". The Four Deuces (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — article is widely presented and referenced from the mainstream media including The Times, The Telegraph, Spectator, The Mail, BBC, Guardian, Daily Express, Daily Star, The Sun and so on. The controversy is WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliable and WP:Notable, has been developing in the public sphere over a period of two weeks so far (first emerged in late October and is still in the media today as well). The scandal has seen an official inquiry initated by the Shadow Cabinet of the Government and a public apology from the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom. Despite the bundles of sources, vast coverage from politicans including in the House of Commons and an official enquiry underway, Nickhh and a few other activists apparently don't like what the media says. IMO the nomination is not based on policy or rationale (as it is easily verifiable and notable), but rather personal political views/Labour activism (far left cover up attempt). - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, it is indeed all a plot, and my Labour party membership number is 435677AF. That aside, there seems to be some confusion here, as I highlighted in the deletion rationale - is the "scandal" Neather's comments and the brief fuss they caused, or is the "scandal" the wider issue of Labour's supposedly bad immigration policy, which means we just chuck in every day's criticism of it in the media from now on and forever? And do we do the same for every policy of every UK government, Conservative and Labour, since time immemorial? Sorry, but this is not a scandal, and it is not notable, regardless of media coverage and the fact that WP readers need to know THE TRUTH.--Nickhh (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two weeks coverage in the mainstream media so far, still continuing today is "brief" coverage? No, not really. You show your colours when you say "regardless of media coverage". What you are saying by this, is you don't care that the media is covering it, you don't care if the Government have issued a public apology or the Shadow Cabinet has initated an official inquiry. You just don't like it and wan't it covered-up ASAP. WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliable and WP:Notable—all things which the article falls into. You personally don't get to decide whether something is notable, we can't use your WP:Opinion as a reference. The mainstream media, the politicians, the Shadow Cabinet and the Home Secretary are what we use. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact: The government have not issued an "apology" for a "scandal", despite what you have said above, and despite what you are trying to make the page in question say. Nor am I aware of what powers the shadow cabinet in the UK has to initiate an "official inquiry". The opposition and media have criticised an aspect of government policy, and the Home Secretary has said they have made mistakes in an area of policy. That's called politics. And I am quite right about notability and media coverage - see the quote from WP:NOTABILITY I pointed to in the nomination, which you seem to be happily ignoring, as you are the question about what this "scandal" actually involves; although you appear to be arguing, from what I can tell, that it is indeed pretty much anything you fancy to do with the current government's immigration policy. --Nickhh (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A load of newspapers kicking off about the government's immigration policy (as they do frequently) does not make a good topic for an encylopedia. Other than the newpapers involved, I don't see any other sources establishing this as a scandal. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article suffers NPOV and possibly synthesis issues for sure, and the political POV-pushing/talk page behaviour by article authors is despicable; but coverage is wide verifiable, reliable (BBC, Guardian etc.) and therefore notable. The SOAP and NPOV issues brought on by nominator -which I agree exist and are to be dealt with- can be dealt by editing, not deletion, per WP:ATD policy. AfD is not a way to solve a NPOV battle. Bringing the article to WP:NPOVN is a better option. A merge could also be, but proposing a merge does not need AfD. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is no "scandal", the thing that is the purported topic of this article does not exist. It's more than just NPOV. --Nickhh (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the saying "scandal" is POV (and I agree it can be), rename the article "controversy" or whatever suits better. If there are irrelevant sections in the article, trim them. If the remaining content can be merged in the general article about immigration, so be it. But this doesn't mean that this information has not to be covered. There has been indeed a surge of articles on leaked stuff about Labour immigration policy. I agree it is not a full "scandal", but more of a controversy that can be merged in a parent article. Yet it doesn't mean we have to delete this article: quite the contrary, what has to be done is to discuss the issues on the talk page / relevant noticeboards and eventually merge it (if necessary). --Cyclopia ^talk 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Storm in a teacup and not notable. Doesn't have significant lasting and historical interest and impact, breaches WP:SOAP and relies on questionable sources. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: subject one of the most notable political topics in the UK. Only positions put forward in article are referenced reports from mainstream media and quotes by politicians; thus clearly not "SOAP". The mainstream media are the only sources used throughout, which passes WP:Verifiability with flying colours. - Yorkshirian (talk)

Comment: I agree, SOAP is not applicable here, and that it's mostly mainstream sources. But the newspapers have complained about immigration for as long as I can remember - how do you decide what stories should be in this article? --h2g2bob (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: WP:SOAP calls for objective reporting from a neutral point of view. That's hardly the case with opinion pieces from the Daily Mail entitled, for example, "The slow-motion New Labour putsch that swept our nation away", "The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us", and from the same author in the Spectator, "Trying to stuff the cat back into the bag". Further, I wouldn't call "emigrate.co.uk", the "Daily Star" or 24dash.com mainstream media. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Or, more accurately, WP:NOTATABLOID. JBsupreme (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an extremist POV article attempting to synthesise a "scandal" where none exists, and to misrepresent the original source of the "story" (Andrew Neather). Fails WP:NOT#NEWS; furthermore retaining this article would set an unacceptable precedent where every contrived political squabble would merit a Wikipedia article. --NSH001 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I initially suggested this page should be merged to "immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922", but I now believe it should just be deleted. It's a coatrack for putting any negative immigration news story. The "related stories" don't seem to be related unless the article is about the entire immigration system in the 1990s and 2000s. In that case it would be part of "immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922". With it's current title, it's just a content fork of the main article. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments on the talk page. Political propaganda, fails WP:N by a long way. --FormerIP (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The article is a pure POV synthesis of newspaper stories which amounts to a journalistic exercise rather than an encyclopaedic one. The few definite facts within it drown in a sea of mostly very predictable opinion pieces from people commenting on things in general. The very introduction asserts that Andrew Neather had claimed that the Government "set about a deliberate policy of encouraging mass third world immigration, to socially engineer a multicultural society". Very significantly, none of the five references which follow actually link to what Andrew Neather wrote; indeed at no point is his actual article used as a reference (for the record, it's "Don't listen to the whingers - London needs immigrants", Evening Standard, 23 October 2009, p. 14). This may be because Andrew Neather did not use the terms "third world" or "social engineering"; they were terms inserted into the debate by those who reacted to his article. (Be it remembered also that the thrust of his article was to contend that immigration was a good thing that had benefited London.)
When Neather read some of the comments about his original article, he wrote a second in which he complained that his meaning had been distorted and that "there was no plot" to make Britain multicultural; the main goal of migration policy was to solve skills shortages. This second article is not referred to at all. ("How I became the story and why the Right is wrong", Evening Standard, 26 October 2009, p. 15.)
It may be contended that, if these POV problems are ironed out and a firm NPOV razor applied to the article, and it is moved to a neutral title (it is not by any reasonable terms a 'scandal'), that it might become acceptable. Unfortunately I do not think so. Migration policy is a continuous stream rather than a series of atomised policies. The events described in this article can fit better if integrated in the text of Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922 but they need to be rewritten from scratch rather than starting with anything in this article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure POV-pushing and improper synthesis, and I think the WP:NOT provisions against scandal-mongering and tabloid news also apply. The central figure in this supposed scandal says "Somehow this has become distorted by excitable rightwing newspaper columnists into being a 'plot' to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot."[27] As Yorkshirian is complaining about political motivations of other editors, perhaps he should remove the plank from his own eye. Some material on this topic could be included in Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922#Contemporary immigration (1983 onwards) giving it due weight, but this article should not be merged there. Fences&Windows 20:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As other editors have said, this so-called 'scandal' isn't "of significant lasting and historical interest and impact" - it hasn't even prompted a ministerial resignation. There is a gap for a balanced article on UK immigration policy since 1997, but this isn't even a start. However, I would be happy to see a couple of lines mentioning the affair in Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922.--Pondle (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear example of WP:NOTNEWS. This incident doesn't seem to have gotten beyond "a short burst of news reports" which is not enough to justify an encyclopedia article. *** Crotalus *** 16:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or at the very least redirect and merge to the main article about immigration to the UK since 1922. To delete this is to justify censorship because the left-wing and official government sources (BBC) haven't picked up on it. Many other sources have.--Sangthebirds (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The BBC is not an "official Government source". It is a public corporation, editorially independent of Government, and has a stated commitment to impartiality.[28]--Pondle (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Precisely. And I do wish people would stop talking about "censorship" and "left-wing" politics, as if this has anything to do with it, quite apart from being a rather tedious and unwarranted breach of WP:AGF. As has been noted several times, if there's any political agenda at work here, it's rather transparently coming from the other side, as it were. This is, quite simply, a non-notable non-scandal, according to any serious and reliable source. I for one would just as forcefully be supporting deletion of any page that had been cobbled together in a similar fashion under the heading "Conservative Lisbon Treaty U-turn". --Nickhh (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why non-notable? Reciprocal tossing of political bias accusations aside, it seems that both issues you talk about are legitimate and quite notable events in the current evolution of contemporary UK and if we can have detailed coverage of them, why not having it? --Cyclopia ^talk 12:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickhh; yet convinently most of those who want to hide this are pro-socialist and/or Labour supporters. Which is a clear conflict of interest and political motivation. When the history books are written on this topic, if activists manage to hide this article, it will have to say that Wikipedia was censored. The Times, The Telegraph, Spectator, The Mail, BBC, Guardian, Daily Express, Daily Star, The Sun are reliable mainstream sources, used throughout the article (over 30 references). Not one "unreliable source" can be found—the only problem you have is the media isn't matching your views in this case. Absolutely no original research or synth is contained. Politically the centre (Tory), the centre-left (Lib Dems) and even some in the Labour Party such as Frank Field have been in uproar over this and that is why there is an official inquiry and an apology by the Home Secretary, so you can't claim its some sort of ultra-hardliner conspiracy against Labour. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshirian, it would help your cause avoiding to appeal to conspiracy theories about censorship. Please assume good faith. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I was just trying to express what I see from this position. It seems ridiculous to me that some can claim that the sources aren't "reliable" enough when everyone in the mainstream media from The Times to The Guardian to The Telegraph are used in the article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has claimed that most of the sources used are not, in a general sense, reliable sources. The problems with this article go beyond that, and have been explained at length by a succession of editors (for example - NOTNEWS? NOTABILITY? The fact that Google searches reveal nothing known by this name?) You haven't actually addressed any of those points, and instead insist on repeating bizarre vague claims about censorship and political bias, while also inventing non-existent "official inquiries" and claiming that there has been an apology for the "scandal" from the home secretary. --Nickhh (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, POV, WP:SYNTHESIS, per others' comments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight breakfast[edit]

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

Delete. Subject is not notable, sources are not forthcoming, and this has been largely unsourced for 2 years now. Enough. JBsupreme (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had never heard of it, but a Google Book search shows it is a well known tradition at a great many colleges. Google News search:[29], Google Book search:[30]. For Barnard College, a book calls it a "rich tradition." It goes beyond having 24 hour food service available, in that the college president and faculty serve up a festive midnight breakfast as a finals week study break. (Reminds me of the late night "sausaging" to celebrate the end of WW1 in a movie version of "Goodbye Mr. Chips"). Edison (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a tradition at many colleges across the country, particularly involving a meal served by university officials during finals week. Stanford is another university touting it; the item about Midnight Breakfast under "traditions" links to this article. A Google search for "midnight breakfast" finds 30,000 hits. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Keep, per above - evidence exists to suggest that this is a widespread tradition, and that's documented - so, keep. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notion of Feminity[edit]

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

encyclopedic essay RadioFan (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research per WP:NOR, unreferenced personal essay per WP:NOT#ESSAY. MuffledThud (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yup, original research/essay. Declan Clam (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay on "subject" with no chance of becoming an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research (WP:OR). Were this to be a well-sourced examination of academic comment on this topic (which it's not), the appropriate place for it would be at the existing article on Femininity. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzanian community in Greece[edit]

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

Insufficient notability, non-encyclopedic, promotion: this article is about a group claiming to represent the Tanzanians of Greece. However, there is no claim as to notability, and the article consists mostly of the short history of this organization. The same user has created a number of speedy-deleted or PRODded articles on Tanzanians abroad, promoting inter alia the website www.tanzaniansingreece.com. Constantine ✍ 15:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable / Promotional. It doesn't seem to establish notability. It reminds me of the article about Jamaicans in Switzerland that was deleted not long ago. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied from article talk): There may be more sources to come for this article and more notability,I don't think this article can be listed for deletion because we can find similar article from the following wikipedia address [1] Many people have tried to write about the importance of their community,it's not bad to make people aware of this community as well,Greece is well known country and there are many things going on everyday,and I m sure that there are many to be mentioned in the article soon. I have seen many articles like this one,for example GREEK IN CANADA,GREEK IN AMERICA,GREEK CYPRUS,GREEK ALBANIAN,and you can find more in Greek diaspora,so they should be deleted first then we can check for the new one,the aurthor of those Articles you can find that he has used the same words,same sentences in his/her articles just he/she changes the country and tried to insert famous people in those articles for them to be valid. Originally posted by 82.47.164.107 (talk) at 17:06 on 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - this sounds like a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which would be invalid. Also, WP:NOHARM is an argument to avoid. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't look as though this community has been written about non-trivially in reliable, independent sources. The other communities mentioned by the IP editor have been, as proven by a simple Google search or sources already cited in their articles. According to the OECD there were 402 Tanzanians in Greece in 2001 ([31]; select "Tanzania" and "Stock of foreign-born population by nationality", look at the row labelled "Greece"). The WP:NOTBIGENOUGH fallacy notwithstanding, in my experience writing these kinds of articles that's usually too small a community for any journalists or scholars to have taken serious notice of them. cab (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Quality is more important than Quantity to have small number of Tanzanians in Greece is not a reason not to be disclosed,The importance of mention this community is because Greece government is known for not disclose important information,you have mention the page on your point and you can see there is no any information of Migration in Greece for recent years,[32] the thing which is well known by authority,Registration for foreigners for the secondtime was 2004 and numbers of foreigners have been registered but that information has not been disclosed and no reliable data.Data from OAED and IKA are quite different.The biggest problem people are discusing here is because of races [33] I think there is nothing wrong to this community as others have written about GREEK-CYPROS-GREEK CANADIAN-GREEKTURKS And I cant see any notability other than mentioned Singers and actors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.164.107 (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to save this article, you have to provide sources which actually discuss Tanzanians in Greece. We don't care if there's a thousand or a million Tanzanians there, and we don't care what random websites set up by Tanzanians in Greece say about Tanzanians in Greece. We care what newspapers, books, and academic journals have said about them. And please do not remove the deletion tags from the article while this discussion is ongoing. cab (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep-I think you care about the number and that is why you have mentioned that there are about 500 Tanzanians in Greece,and you have provided the only source you depend(OECD)on and all in your own source you can find only GREECE is the country where there is no data of any country not only Tanzania,the last data was 1998,so the creater of the article knows exactly what he is going to explain,as the article seems new,you can just give it time,I have gone through your profile and found the same complaints made against you not once not twice,so if nothing is interesting you or you have nothing to create,do not wait for someone's Idea just read books for sometimes you can get new idea,sorry for that,the tag will still there and you will find only you oppose that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.164.107 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Since you have expressed your opinion once already, you don't need to continue to say "keep" at the beginning of every comment. And please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end. cab (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7 by NawlinWiki. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solmunki[edit]

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

Non-notable clothing manufacturer. There isn't a reliable source in this article (they're all blogs that merely mention that, for instance, some person wore this brand's hoodie. Moreover, it seems to me that this is a recreation of a speedily deleted article: the author was kind enough to place a "hangon" tag on the page, though the history doesn't have the application of a speedy tag--the author's talk page, however, suggests that an earlier version was speedied. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuhn's Quality Foods[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kuhn's Quality Foods

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS, prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Even with nine stores, there's nothing in the article that shows me this is a particularly significant or important chain. As noted above, no significant coverage in independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. Even with the revisions made today, I'm still not convinced the depth of coverage is sufficient for GNG. There are lots of stories on a transactional basis, but no deeper coverage of the store. I still lean on the side of deleting the article, but I'm not as convinced as I was earlier. —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, a local grocery chain, every town will have something similar. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. It certainly appears to be better sourced now than what I first read. May have some local or historical interest to future generations. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ lacks significant coverage in 3rd party references, local chain, does not meet notability guidelines RadioFan (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete I'm also not convinced of the notability of this subject. References or not, there isn't anything in the article to differentiate this business from any other small chain.--RadioFan (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now shows significant coverage from a number of different sources. The company has been in business since 1967. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article now improved, I think coverage and size is significant enough for inclusion. Probably more coverage than recent keep for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridley's Family Markets, and certainly much more than recent delete for the 3-store Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee's Marketplace. --Milowent (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - wish I'd found half that many refs when I looked. Well done to Milowent and Eastmain for the digging - if you found that much within a few hours, then it's worth keeping and improving. MuffledThud (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Kudos to Milowent for his continued research. I'm going to give the store the benefit of the doubt, that what the article needs is expansion (history section, anybody) and more research and not deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of notable references. Dream Focus 09:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per withdrawn nomination and no outstanding delete !votes. (NAC) -SpacemanSpiff 17:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Boro[edit]

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

Original PROD was removed by an IP address. Fails WP:ATHLETE, has not played in a professional league. Eddie6705 (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Eddie6705 (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:ATHLETE. The IPL is a fully-pro league, and this news article describes him as a player who "consistently finds his name in the first XI", indicating he is a first-team regular. Giant Snowman 14:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 19:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per GiantSnowman. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per GiantSnowman. Nfitz (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Indian league is fully pro Spiderone 14:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had not seen that news article when nominating. I understand the league is professional, but i couldn't find any stats to suggest he had played. Am happy to be proven wrong and don't mind withdrawing the nomination. Eddie6705 (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Springbok Club[edit]

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

Article subject is not notable: aside from a fleeting (ie not significant) reference in one article on the Guardian website, all references are fringe blogs or non-neutral websites. Prose has been plagued since its creation by problems with unreferenced/unverifiable statements and neutral points of view. With the greatest respect to those who have contributed to this article, or attempted to pull it up to scratch (I am part of the latter group), this really is the kind of article that I would be embarrassed to admit has an entry in our encyclopedia. AGK 14:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion, obviously, is delete. AGK 14:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's also another brief mention in another paper, but even two brief mentions in passing don't indicate notability. There are substantial NPOV issues with this article which can't be resolved with so few secondary sources. Those issues have resulted in edits that have swung the article between radically different accounts. It's an obscure group on the fringe of politics that isn't notable enough for an article. Will Beback talk 16:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete. I think there should be place on wikipedia for obscure groups and fringe politics - where else can you find out about half of these groups! However, I accept the points about lack of notability and POV issues. At the end of the day this appears to be a minor and insignificant group and realistically the only thing of note is as an episode in the Andrew_Roberts_(historian) article.--GeezerBird (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a A7. Secret ^account 16:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiser records[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the notability requirements of WP:COMPANY regarding significant coverage in secondary sources. Searching for "Kaiser records" on Google News only yields results about other corporate entities named Kaiser. PROD contested by anonymous IP. Favonian (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just noticed that the article was previously submitted to articles for creation by the IP editor who contested the PROD. The article was rejected, but here we are. Favonian (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clear that the IP editor mentioned is the same person as Nicky Design, who created this article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no coverage of the company or of any of the artists signed by the company. Non-notable. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article gives no independent sources at all. I have searched, and found only the company's own web site, MySpace, Twitter, blogs, etc. No evidence at all of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Missouri[edit]

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

An article that is really unnecessarily precise and just provides trivia on the subject. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I'm going to have to agree with GrooveDog. We should keep the article as a redirect and merge relevant info into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Airplaneman ^talk 02:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several other similar articles exist for other areas so why not Missouri? Some of these pages have existed since 2007 and were created and edited by various contributors. Dmm1169 (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

v t e The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the United States
States	Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Federal district	Washington, D.C.
Territories	American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands
Membership statistics (United States) Temples in the United States Missions in the United States

I've had users give me special requests in creating similar pages (User talk:Dmm1169#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in US State articles)Dmm1169 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - well, just on the face of it, I'd argue that the you shouldn't compare an article on the Church in State X to the Church in Nation Y, since one would expect nations to be more importance. Also, I don't see any (third party) references discussing the Church. I'd be happy with a redirect to the main church article. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - or merge, if you really feel that Missouri is that important concerning the church. I think the biggest thing in MO is something about Mormonism in Independance, MO...? If anyone finds something notable then I say merge, but for now redirect.--fetch comms 03:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article doesn't emphasize the distinctive places in Missouri which cause the LDS Church to distinguish it from, say, New Jersey or Oregon or Florida. (See Adam-ondi-Ahman, for example.) Certain places in Missouri are significant not only in Mormon history, but in Mormon theology. If this article were rewritten to focus on Mormon historical/theological sites in Missouri, it should be kept, but otherwise I don't see the need for a state-by-state analysis of the church and I would otherwise support a redirect per Bfigura. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of the other state articles might be deletable under this rationale; but if a separate article were justified for a US state, it would be justified for Missouri. As Metropolitan90 points out, various locations in Missouri are important in Mormon history and lore. The several country pages may be different enough from each otehr to justify separate articles, even as we have at least a few articles in Category:Scientology by country about that movement and its reception in various countries; some may be more worth while than others. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one; much as I dislike it, Missouri is essential for LDS history, for example, the riots and lynching of early leaders. Relist the others, please, so we can discuss them separately. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But isn't that history already discussed in articles on the church's history? Should we reproduce it in this article? (I'm not trying to ask a leading question, I'm just unsure of whether or not such a reproduction would be in line with / against policy or precedent). --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Bearian says, this is not the one to delete--there should be a discussion about the others. They may be justified on the same principle that we keep RC dioceses. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

Comment as Phil says below, wouldn't that apply to areas or stakes, rather than state-by-state organizations? -- Bfigura ^(talk) 16:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i think this articles problem is it doesnt indicate the notability of missouri for lds. thats an issue for article improvement, but even as a nonmember and total nonexpert, i saw this and remembered that this state has a part in lds history. the others may need merging if not notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because similar articles exist isn't enough of a reason to keep it. AS stated there might be just as much reason to delete those. Seem like WP:OP to me. Stupidstudent (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The LDS church is not organised by US state or by country, but by area (larger than a US state and occasionally coterminous with a country) and stake (typically smaller than a US state). Surely our coverage of the church should be organised in the same way, rather than imply the existence of levels of organisation that don't actually exist. I would suggest that we should have articles on all areas and on any particularly notable stakes. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted by Bearian, Missouri is important to the LDS history. --Pink Bull (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The present article may not be especially useful, but quite a lot has been written about this topic (WorldCat). EALacey (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. MO maybe important in LDS history, but the article doesn't demonstrate this. Jnthn0898 (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 12:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Dembski[edit]

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

Deletion or major edit justified by gross and consistant violation of WP:VALID: vital component is good research; balance; impartial tone; characterizing opinions of other people's work. Deletion or major edit also justified by gross and consistant violation of WP:MNA and WP:RNPOV. With one hundred and twenty-one sources cited, over seventy and five percent are biased and in prejudice against William A. Dembski and/or his beliefs, preconcieved beliefs, and work. Hrafn "note[s]" that "this article does in fact" not give equal validity to "minority views such as pseudoscience"; how ever true and with WP:VALID on the issue of equal validity to sources, then balance must also be in existance (refuted by the ratio of for and against William A. Dembski sources cited), then impartial tone must be given to the "pseudoscience", then characterizing opinions of William A. Dembski can not attack his character. Also, by inciting a debate between creationists and evolutionists as part of an encyclopedia article--one that is heavily unbalanced by the evolutionist perspective, validated only in the factuality given to that perspective and not in its frequency or in the tone given to the creationist stance,--especially one article not concerning evolutionism, is hardly appropriate. This article is a biographical article that has become one in violation of WP:MNA and WP:RNPOV and WP:VALID. The article is well sourced. The article, how ever, also takes sources and dedicates a whole section, larger than the early life of the subjectItalic text', to document supposed net squabbles between malicious critics and the administrators of William A. Dembski's personal "blog". This article does not follow any coherent structure and has been mentioned as "piecemeal" on the talk page. Much of the talk page, either citing bias or debating quotes, is dominated by biased sources and opinion--all of which has so leaked through this article. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Article is well-sourced, neutral and stable. Also, none of the issues listed by nominator is a reason for deletion. --Sander Säde 11:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No reasons given for deletion of this largely notable public figure article, very well sourced. all problems identified by nominator can be dealt with standard editing -see WP:ATD. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: nomination does not cite a legitimate reason for deletion. Wealth of coverage demonstrating topic is notable. Whilst WP:NPOV is generally not a valid reason for deletion, I would note that this article does in fact comply with WP:VALID as it does not "'give equal validity' to minority views such as pseudoscience". Likewise no indication (let alone a coherently argued claim) that it violates WP:MNA and WP:RNPOV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The reasons given are not reasons for deletion, and all really belong in the talk page for ongoing work on the quality of the article. The WP:VALID guideline that is cited by the proposer is actually a clarification that neutrality does not require giving equal balance to both sides. The article as it stands does meet neutrality as understood on wikipedia. The idea that the article violates WP:MNA (Make Necessary Assumptions) is just weird; but in any case it is not a reason for deletion. The article does meet WP:RNPOV (Religious Neutral Point of View) just fine, but in any case it is not a reason for deletion. There is no case given here for deletion. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article on an unfortunately notable man.—Kww(talk) 12:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, advertising for a political campaign. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save Ganga[edit]

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

Propaganda or pamphlet about saving a river from some company projects. Anna Lincoln 10:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Anna Lincoln 10:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SOAP. WWGB (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, advertising for book of same name. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be the leader[edit]

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

Essay or how-to guide. Anna Lincoln 10:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- word-for-word copy of an essay of some kind: see here. It is apparently not a copyvio because it seems to have been released to Creative Commons; but it still doesn't belong here. Reyk _YO! 12:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how-to with no actual prose, just bullet lists. Hairhorn (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Bennett[edit]

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

Film producer written up by someone with an obvious COI, No evidence of notabilty. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would I provide evidence of notability? --Kibadunno (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can get Taylor Hackford to contact you, if you need credibilty. Please leave your contact info. --Kibadunno (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey: We don't need phone calls, what is meant by "notability" is usually proof of the significance of the person, such as by newspaper articles and other coverage of them, and adding those references to the article. As written, it sounds like an advertisement, not a neutral article.--Milowent (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick stab at reworking the text, as most of it was a blockquote from her website. A few of these items she has worked on do appear notable, but I didn't dig yet for any coverage about her specifically.--Milowent (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author admits to COI. I have explained the lack of notability and such. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems she has been writen of in multiple reliable sources [34] [35] since at least 1984... and was even nominated for a Grammy. Further research will discover if any of her other productions won awards. But meeting WP:GNG would seem to be a keeper. Time to send this one to WP:CLEANUP now that it belongs to Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Marginally notable, but on the side of inclusion. This article definately needs to be reworked by editors without a COI; I'd suggest Kibadunno stay away from the article. Angryapathy (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Grammy nominee [36], other significant credits. Several of the projects she produced are hugely notable and quite influential. Obviously satisfies the GNG and (probably) multiple specialized guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Excellent credits. This person is the real thing and very clearly belongs in Wikipedia, due to significant cultural contributions. It's up to us to provide whatever citations as are necessary. Deletion in this case would be a travesty, IMHO. Rudybowwow (talk) 21:42 11 November 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GREY PAPER[edit]

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

Not widespread acception of the term. No sources referring to it. Anna Lincoln 10:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, this is not only unsourced and apparently unverifiable, it's only a dicdef, not an encyclopedia article. If a proper sourced article cannot be written about this, this should be deleted. -- The Anome (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really, just a dicdef right now, so delete. And also per the nominater's reasons. What's with all the caps? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 13:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:NEO, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW, "NEW WORD invented 19th October, 2009 by Paul Douglas Lovell". NawlinWiki (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remorquious[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. No reliable sources. Anna Lincoln 10:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:NEO, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remorquiously[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. No reliable sources. Anna Lincoln 10:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and the article Remorquious should be considered under this same AFD for similar reasons. TheLetterM (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digit TV[edit]

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

Contested prod. A totally nonnotable DVD/online video series that started in October 2009. Article is sourced to the magazine's website and its forum, but even then contains some OR. Despite the large number of false positives (due to Digital TV), I was unable to find any third-party reliable sources on this subject. Zero relevant Gnews hit. Fails WP:GNG. Tim Song (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gower[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Jagex and RuneScape are undoubtedly notable. However the founder and developer--despite wealth and appearing (with no significant information beyond the source of his wealth) in lists of wealthy people--is not. There is no significant coverage of him whatsoever--no significant biographical information beyond being a co-founder of Jagex and developer of RuneScape is mentioned in any reliable source. The fact that all but the barest of facts are sourced from non-independent sources is a clue to this. There is nothing here that is both worthy of reporting and not appropriate for the articles on the company or its products. ^Bongo_matic 08:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The previous two AFDs were overwhelming keeps, and there's no indication that anything has changed to support a different result. The argument that the only available sources cover only what makes him notable, whether accurate or not, is particularly unconvincing to me. Wikipedia biographes are generally better when their contents are limited to material which reflects notability, rather than being bulked out with dating history, childhood incidents, and trivia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The argument that the only available sources cover only what makes him notable" is a (possibly deliberate) misrepresentation of the rationale. If I thought there was anything that made him notable, I would not have raised the AfD. The reliable independent coverage is of his wealth, noting its source—not inherently notable. ^Bongo_matic 23:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources suggest notability, plus there may be other available sourcing, which I will dig into a bit later. I believe that his company won an industry award recently, which helps build up notability. If we assume that "Creative Professionals" include founders/designers of games companies, than this award would give him notability under point 3 of WP:CREATIVE. The fact that there is no biographical information should not be a reason for deletion: Better to provide the reader with the information that exists in a stub, rather than have no information at all. Whilst I can see why this is on the borderline of "Keep" and "Delete" according to guidelines, I think that WP:IAR should be invoked here. The mission statement is to provide the end-user, the reader of Wikipedia, with reliable sourced information on notable topics. It is entirely possible that following the industry award Jagex Ltd recieved, some may be interested in the founder of the firm. We should not deny them the reliable sourced information currently available. I am by no means saying all the content of the article is perfect, but I believe it would be a net positive to the project goals to maintain and improve this article. --Taelus (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now expanded the article to mention the industry award won by his firm, and cleaned it up a little with an additional citebook. --Taelus (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah also, I found an additional source: The Daily Telegraph listed him and his brother as the 11th richest young entrepreneurs in the UK, this surely helps with notability concerns... (Added to the article too.) --Taelus (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of interviews and the like to establish notability, which is clear from the current consensus. While the page not having citations is an issue, poor quality is not grounds for deletion. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, well sourced, and even well written enough to be a C-class article. There are also other reliable sources out there that haven't been added. Why was this nominated? --Teancum (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postsocialism[edit]

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

Aside from being poorly written in terms of both grammar and style, this article is entirely original research and unreferenced. I'm not sure the topic is more than a neologism. If there is an acceptable article to be written on this topic, the current version offers nothing of value to start with, and it is best deleted. Peacock (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not have said it better myself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is certainly no neologism, with many books having been written about the subject as it applies both to Eastern Europe and China, such as ISBN 9780415262576, ISBN 9781845451240 and ISBN 9780822342304. I don't see what is so irredeemable about the current content of the article as to prevent it from being used as a starting point. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is original research, unsourced and contains factual errors. "Postsocialism" literally means "after socialism" and is not used as a consistent concept in the various searches above. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this jingoistic crystal-balling based-on-nothing right-wing fantasy. Qworty (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concours Owners Group - COG[edit]

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

Unremarkable organisation. Article does not establish notability of the club which primarily operates in North America and only concerns a single model, rather than an entire marque. Biker Biker (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep article needs improvement but some third party coverage [37]. LibStar (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on your definition of "unremarkable". COG has been around for 20 years, it has 1,800 members which is quite a lot for a bike club for a single bike (as you point out). And over its history has had over 8,000 members. COG is open to ANY member regardless of their bike. We also help sponsor/run an OTP (Over The Pond) campaign to bring/take a member to/from our sister group (GTE Riders) in Europe. In addition we have about 500 members/Guests attend our National Rally each year. Not sure how many other Groups have that type of coverage? This is my first Wiki and I welcome any advice to improve it. --Colinp386 (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it must satisfy WP:ORG, number of members is irrelevant. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I will look to improve with links to the 3rd part coverage, any tips on how to improve the article would be appreciated. --Colinp386 (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just the very reason to be of note. The simple fact that the club is organized around a single marque states the strength of not only the marque, but that of the individual organization that is the officail representative of said marque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.30.37 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is this a 'keep'? tedder (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are some mentions in the gnews archive, but they are either simply mentions or in Rider Magazine, which is pretty far down the WP:RS totem pole. Further, there are mentions in books, but apparently nothing more than a mention. I'm somewhat surprised- I thought a bike like the Connie would have generated more coverage at a higher level than it has, and perhaps the new Connie is too new to produce a community. tedder (talk) 07:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest there is a difference between the size of the community and the amount of coverage they get. The COG community is very active with many events a year, multiple news letters to members etc. However as a Community/Non Profit Group, it does virtually no marketing or PR externally that's why it has little coverage in the news. Most of the community online interaction takes place on the original Group forum www.cogmos.com (225,850 Posts in 19,472 Topics by 9,660 Members. ) I guess what I am saying is that with COG its what they do thats notable not what they or others say. --Colinp386 (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin- please see WP:BIG. Or, to compare another way (in a non-wiki argument), advrider doesn't have an article and it has 400k topics, 10M posts, and 115k members. tedder (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great point. I am one of those 115k members, I worked in the same company as one of the founders and I'm a huge fan (and customer) of the MacAskill family whose SmugMug empire fund Advrider, but I would never dream of creating an Advrider article. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder thanks for the WP:BIG let me get back to you after I have spent time reviewing. I suggest Advrider which appears to be highly popular forum is quite a different kettle of fish from the Concours Owners Group, so just because one would not create a Wiki page for Advrider is irrelevant to this discussion. I was not attempting to use the forum activity as an argument as justification not to delete the page, as I agree forum activity has little to do with notability. --Colinp386 (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were couching the importance of COG in terms of the forum. I was providing an example, even though it isn't a valid argument, but gives a comparison (see also WP:OSE). However, ultimately the COG page needs to pass WP:N. If there aren't verifiable and reliable sources establishing the importance/significance of it, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems to be that there are enough reliable sources to establish notability. In addition, the article may be merged with Fraser Committee, but that is an editorial decision that should be made on the talk page. NW (Talk) 02:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fefferman[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This person does not pass WP‘s standards for notability. WP:Notability (people) says, in part: “Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.” Mr. Fefferman, according to Google News has been mentioned by the news media 23 times over a career of 35 years as a spokesperson for the Unification Church and various of its related projects. As far as I can see none have given him coverage in depth to the extent of even mentioning his birthplace, his wife’s name, or other details that one would expect if he was a truly important person. Since I am a personal friend of his I will not bring up any other issues, but nominate for deletion on WP:Notability alone. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, satisfying WP:NOTE. Individual has served in a variety of executive leadership roles on a national level for organizations affiliated with Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, in titles including "Executive director", "National president", "Regional director", "Chief editor", etc. His testimony before the United States House of Representatives and the decision of a committee of the United States Congress to recommend he be cited for contempt of Congress was covered in multiple secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of which are in depth coverage about him as a person. Note that Congress did not cite him, a fact which the article does not mention (because not covered in the news showing he is not regarded as important by them.) BTW if he had been found in contempt of Congress he would have lots of company, according to recent polls. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said Since I am a personal friend of his I will not bring up any other issues, but nominate for deletion on WP:Notability alone. I guess you changed your mind and have decided to respond to postings at the AfD? Cirt (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with the nominator commenting on his AfD. You brought up the issue of "contempt of Congress."Steve Dufour (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I, if it is not ad infinitum. I suppose I misinterpreted your statement to mean you would not comment further at the AfD, due to your conflict of interest. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: received considerable third party coverage (and scrutiny of his previous activities) as a result of being called to testify in the Fraser Committee hearings. Easily enough to meet WP:GNG. Has not received much third-party coverage since, but then "Notability is not temporary". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would further point out that Fefferman has generated probably more coverage than has been presented for any other Unificationist, with the exception of Moon and his wife. If this article goes, then I'd suggest that virtually every article in List of Unificationists should follow. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there. WP should follow secondary sources, not lead them. (And GNG says: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail..." Which has not happened in this case.)Steve Dufour (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When it comes to notability, there is a line that is crossed at a certain point, and Fefferman crossed it a long time ago. Being closely associated with a well-known and well-covered religious movement, including holding official titles in that organization, is sufficient. Being part of a group that was investigated for what was termed an attempt to stop an impeachment of a U.S. President helps. Being called to testify before the U.S. Congress in relation to certain of those activities adds to notability. Fefferman is described by the New York Times as appearing to have "spent most of his time on why and how members of the church must stimulate news coverage" (73 Record Tells of Plan by Sun Myung Moon Aides for Drive Against Nixon Impeachment, 1977-09-19, p22, by Richard Halloran). There are book links as well; see above or this alternate. We're not talking about the long-time president of the local PTA here...this is an international movement. He's notable. Frank | talk 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But he has not been covered in depth by secondary sources as required by WP:Notability. (I personally think the world would be a better place if Nixon has not resigned, but that's another story.) I also agree with you that Dan should have an article, but we have to wait till someone else publishes one about him.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I disagree with your assertion that there isn't in-depth coverage in secondary sources; the man has consistently been referred to for decades as a close aide of Moon, as a church leader, and is quoted in media sources regarding the church. Second, even if we agree that what you say is true, your interpretation of WP:N is, I believe, logically incorrect. WP:N says that if a topic is covered in-depth, then it is presumed to be notable. That is nowhere near the same as saying that it is required or that if it isn't covered in-depth, it is not notable. I am refraining from giving examples; this discussion is about Fefferman but suffice to say one can be notable without a "he-was-born-in-a-small-town-and-married-his-high-school-sweetheart" set of published source articles. In-depth coverage in secondary sources is merely an easy way to establish notability; it is neither the only way nor a required way. When a subject is covered repeatedly in association with the same narrow set of ideas, that can establish notability, which it does here. I would add that he is now covered as the head of the International Coalition for Religious Freedom; that indicates either the organization is notable and he is also notable as its director, or the secondary sources consider him notable enough from prior activity to seek him out anyway. In addition, while some of the notability may be less than totally flattering, it is nevertheless notable that he has apparently for a couple of decades been a leader in the effort to protect religious freedom, at least in the United States, if not internationally as the name of his organization would suggest. He's not the most notable guy around here...but he is notable nonetheless. Frank | talk 12:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ICRF has also been protesting religious freedom violations in former communist countries, and incidentally defended the rights of Wiccan soldiers in the US military.Steve Dufour (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References are bogus. Check the references -- a bookstore? A church directory? The references are made to look as if they point to reliable publications; rather, they point to Wikipedia pages like "The New York Times". I did a search using all major newspapers with three variations of his name, and nothing turned up.Bogus references should be removed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Offline" is not automatically the same as "bogus", and of course the wikilink to the page for the publisher is a convenience because this is an online encyclopedia. Frank | talk 13:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: these sources do exist -- see for instance this link that Tomwsulcer removed from the article. And, as Frank points out, "'Offline' is not automatically the same as 'bogus'" -- links to online copies are a convenience, not a requirement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further links to articles cited: [38] (already in article) [39] (was about to add link when Tomwsulcer deleted all citations) More: [40]Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clarification - it is not that the references are bogus, but rather that they are malformed. A typical footnote reads:

Dorsey, Gary (August 26, 1999). "Unification Church group sues state over task force; Investigation of cults called unconstitutional". The Baltimore Sun: p. 2B.

when it should read:

Dorsey, Gary. "Unification Church group sues state over task force; Investigation of cults called unconstitutional". The Baltimore Sun, August 26, 1999; p. 2B.

There is no obligation to provide an online link to a reference to a printed source, or to wikilink to the parent company of a newspaper. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is ((cite news)) that is "malformed", as "Dorsey, Gary (August 26, 1999)…" is standard output from it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Hrafn. Actually, I consider ((cite news)) seriously malformed for just that reason, and avoid using it at all costs; but I don't know enough about template programming to know how to fix it. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, there are reliable sources that mention Fefferman's name, and briefly talk about him, but he is not the subject of their coverage. His inclusion is incidental. Unless we can find material that covers Fefferman in a biographical manner, this article should be deleted per WP:GNG. *** Crotalus *** 14:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a negative BLP article with poor sourcing and of dubious notability. Most of the organisations he was a director of (mentioned in the lead) don't even merit articles themselves.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; if no source tells us things like his birth date or place or the name of his wife, I doubt we really do have the sources about him. If he stood out on his own, it might be different, but it seems like the references to him are all as a representative of the Unification Church. There's really nothing to say about him from reliable sources that couldn't be as well said in articles about the Unification Church.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- or Merge to the Fraser Committee, as per Redddogg.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Frank, above. Obvious and strong notability. There are years of coverage of this person in hundreds of WP:RS of all kinds. In several cases he is, indeed, the subject of such coverage (random example [41], but by no far the only one), and the fact that numerous books treat the subject is even more compelling. That we currently don't have sources on his wife or place of birth is irrelevant: we simply won't include such data, and it's fine. NPOV problems can be dealt with editing, per WP:ATD policy. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this obviously meets the notability guideline. Geraldk (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Cirt and Frank. - Europe22 (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fraser Committee. He seems to be mainly known for his testimony there and their threat to cite him for contempt of Congress. Otherwise coverage of him seems to be fairly trivial, quoting him as a spokesperson and stuff like that. Redddogg (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went briefly through the article, and it does appear as if almost all the sources mention him in an incidental context, failing to provide significant coverage, excepting the first two references, which are to a brief online profile, which again fails to provide significant coverage, and, being a profile for a conference, is not subject to terribly high standards of reliability, probably failing RS. That one gives testimony in front of Congress, or play administrative roles in organizations involved in news events, does not make one terribly notable. So the notability is fairly marginal. Because, in addition, this is a biography of a living person where such notability as may exist derives entirely from his participation in a religious movement, that participation not being presented in a favorable light, and this is otherwise an essentially private individual, I support deletion. A redirect may be appropriate; I leave the discussion of the appropriate target to the individual editors. Ray^Talk 03:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm a bit of a deletionist (apparently), but this is rather well sourced including book refs. He appears to be a key player within his own organization and IMO, meets notability - Alison ^❤ 05:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. He seems to have been covered by multiple reliable sources, and the Nixon connection, assuming it's solid, seems to confer notability. Consideration should be given to whether the subject wants deletion, because he seems to be borderline, but on balance I think the weight falls on keep; if there were ever to be a strong objection from him, I would reconsider. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, essentially per Frank, with whose reasoning I can find no fault.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the mentions are passing mentions; there is not substantial coverage of Fefferman himself as a human being, merely as a human face for the movement he represents. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that when he represents a movement, he ceases to be human? :) Seriously: most notable personalities are notable for a single aspect of their life (singing/writing/doing politics/whatever). There is no reason for which Mr.Fefferman should be an exception. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But our standards require substantial coverage of Fefferman himself, not just of the movement he represents. I don't feel that such coverage has been shown to exist. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Frank comments above. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 transgressive segregation. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transgressive phenotype[edit]

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

Nothing but only a single line stating "A Transgressive phenotype is a phenotype that is more extreme than the phenotype displayed by either of their parental lines. Although it is referenced, the lack of other reliable references, combined with a lack of statements, puts this article in a risk of deletion. --_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 05:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly, and without objection to merger somewhere; I'll let biologists worry about where. Google Scholar and books hits suggest use of the concept as described. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge per Smerdis. Having it in the navbox at the bottom makes me leery of merging.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just needs expanding. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I acknowledge that the article needs expanding, but this is an important biological concept. Additionally, the reference included is reliable. Nature_(journal) is a highly respected peer reviewed scientific journal with a high impact factor. AJseagull1 (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated opinion - Merge with transgressive segregation - AJseagull1 (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. hoax Ged UK 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Intelligence and Security Service[edit]

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

Elaborate WP:HOAX including off-wiki content. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as swiftly as possible. The first source is unknown to Worldcat and its supposed publisher's web site. The second doesn't mention this agency. Need I go on? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Price[edit]

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

No notability. Almost orphaned. Little useful information on page. I think articles like this are still being created by people simply to link to self-promotional sites because they don't understand about nofollow. Centrepull (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the subject doesn't appear to pass WP:ENT or WP:BIO. Most notable achievements seem to be having minor film roles, which doesn't really pass our notability criterion. Also, this nomination was initially incomplete, it should now be fixed --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above.-- fetchcomms☛ 04:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as while subject has received some significant coverage in widely-read reliable third-party coverage, the Los Angeles Times article refers to her as a "sub-lebrity" and a "D-lister" known mostly for appearing on red carpets and at gala openings. Thus her claim to notability stems, ironically, from her utter lack of notability. Also, subject doesn't appear to pass WP:ENT. - Dravecky (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd just add that the LATimes coverage seems to be from a fashion blog subsection of the paper. So I'm not really sure it would be considered significant coverage in widely-read reliable third-party coverage. Either way though, doesn't look like notability is there. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course keep, major role in noted The Junkyard Willie Movie: Lost in Transit. 94.193.109.106 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any commentary on her role in the movie, although it does appear to be a non-notable direct-to-dvd release. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Cheong[edit]

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

Non-notable local columnist. Orange Mike | Talk 03:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not in any way a notable writer. Qworty (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find some coverage of Niki Cheong, but only in The Star itself. I don't see coverage of him independent of the paper he works for. -- Atama頭 23:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Smartse (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO ukexpat (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm not sure if I'm even typing this in accurately, as I am pretty unfamiliar with editing Wiki pages. I would just like to respond to the claims of going against Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as well as conflict of interest (2 of the 3 "issues" identified). I would like to apologise for going against the policy. As a journalist I totally understand the need for objectivity in such material, except that when I was making the changes to my page, I was not aware of such policies, unfortunately, due to ignorance and unfamiliarity. I assumed I was making factual changes (and at parts fixing grammatical errors) - including the proper name and location of my former schools, correcting time references (with regards to the run), and some additional information to topics already covered - my role with RandomAlphabets, the beneficiary of Twestival and the year I completed my studies and title of my thesis. I will not comment on the questioning of my "notability" as it is not in my place to make that judgement. Thank you. Nikicheong (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin syndrome[edit]

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

Non-existent disease. It is NOT indexed in the [ICD] and it doesn't appear on Medicine books nowadays. It is a fake diagnosis. Martha2223 (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator's account appears to have been created for the single purpose of nominating this article for deletion. (See Special:Contributions/Martha2223.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX Qworty (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not a hoax (see below) but for your reference, if it were, the correct policy to cite for a Speedy Delete result would have been WP:CSD#G3 (blatant hoax). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. Keep per Bilby. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on the grounds that it isn't a hoax, per the US National Library of Medicine. - Bilby (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(As an aside, the NIM link from the article was broken when it was nominated, so there were no working references at the time) - Bilby (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Not a hoax, just controversial terminology. If I understand correctly - and this is just from on the spot research, I'm not remotely an expert - the term "transsexual", first coined by Harry Benjamin in 1966, has now been appropriated to mean something different, and so what Benjamin referrued to as "transsexualism" is now referred to in some quarters as "Harry Benjamin's syndrome". The controversy arises in that there's still dispute as to whether transsexualism is a biological or psychological condition, and the name "Harry Benjamin's syndrome" is inherently POV in favour of biological. However, whether or not it's a current medical diagnosis, it does carry a distinct meaning understood throughout a wide community of people. (See [42], [43], [44], [45] - not necessarily reliable sources but clear evidence it's not a hoax.) A redirect may be appropriate but prima facie it's not a delete case. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Weak Keep - Ah hah! I was led astray into confusing Benjamin syndrome (aka Benjamin anemia) with Harry Benjamin's syndrome! In that case, weak keep per National Library of Medicine and searches. Definitely exists, and in the case of medical conditions that means sources testifying to its notability are almost certain to exist, albeit often in specialised databases and publications. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad faith nom by a ban-evading sockpuppet of User:Marta314 (previous CheckUser). Jokestress (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But I am not sure what is the standard form of the name for the condition. I have not yet found any recent papers. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its key feature is Chlorosis/Hypochromic anemia, but it has additional components (especially limb hypoplasia and mental retardation). That's why a merge isn't quite right. Environmental factors can cause hypochromic anemia, where this is part of a pervasive congenital condition. Jokestress (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does exist - can indeed be found in Stedman's Medical Eponyms (page 63), as well as Firkin & Whitworth's Dictionary of medical eponyms. As stated above, the association of a number of symptoms and signs involved in a genetic condition would make this very difficult to merge without losing the detail of the syndrome. Gilo ö 06:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I'm familiar with this as being a genetic abnormality leading to hypochromic anemia. It's mentioned in Dictionary of medical eponyms and named after a German pediatrician. It's a pretty rare abnormality but it exists and is documented. Not to be confused with the unfortuately named neologism, Harry Benjamin Syndrome - Alison ^❤ 08:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See Dictionary of medical eponyms - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non-existent disease. Not recognized with such name by the World Health Organization. Non-existent disease in realiable medical sources as PubMed. Not notability. The article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unsigned user above is currently blocked; only previous contributions are to the AfD on Harry Benjamin's syndrome and to the article on User:Jokestress, who has commented above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - now blocked 3 months for repeatedly abusing multiple accounts, per checkuser - Alison ^❤ 00:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sorry but this is a non existent disease, if it does not exist for the WHO then the disease don't exist officially. I agree that it should be deleted. Not reliable medical sources as PubMed and others mention it neither. Thanks. --Jaume Van Damme (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is a single-purpose account (contribs) and from context may be a sock puppet of the other Delete votes above. I suspect there are no good faith delete votes in this discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, with the exception of Qworty, who I disagree with but don't doubt the good faith of. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close You seem to have mistaken this for Articles for Merging. Either use ((Merge)) or do it yourself. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There for Tomorrow discography[edit]

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

Merge to There for Tomorrow. Two albums, two EPs does not justify a discography. Barocci 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Barocci 02:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Barocci 02:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 19:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cordell Francis[edit]

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

Here we go again, folks. Another WP:SPA violating WP:AUTO and WP:COI while failing to live up to WP:MUSIC. Delete away. Qworty (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being created by a single-purpose account is not a reason to delete an article. However, delete because of extreme conflict of interest. Also, having only eight friends on MySpace (one of which is "Tom") and a little over 400 profile views at the time of this writing indicates that Cordell Francis is not notable at this time. « D. Trebbien (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Vanity page, no sources given to verify that any of this is notable, no explanation given of what these 'awards' mean. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nomination and the now seven friends on MySpace (Tom's still there). I wonder when he worked with Beyoncé delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 10:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halloweenight[edit]

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

Non-notable film; part of a group of articles by an s.p.a. who may work for the Polonia brothers, or may be a good-faith fan. Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Made for four grand. Wow. No wonder nobody's ever heard of it. If it makes ten million dollars, it'll really be notable, like Easy Rider. Until then, delete away. Qworty (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Film takings and profits aren't of themselves a measure of notability or a relevant argument under any Wikipedia notability or deletion policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [46], [47], [48], and [49]. Joe Chill (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - Although the Fangoria piece referenced in the article appears to be a a regurgitated press release, the Star Gazette article is significant, detailed, reliable and independent. Dread Central also has significant, detailed coverage. Beyond that I can't find much except a very extensive self-promotion campaign by the film creators but I can't really argue that at least a small handful of sources exist. (Also, is there some unwritten rule that every horror website ever has to employ an absolutely awful red and black page theme?) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to "Keep" from "Weak Keep" thanks to additional sources by Joe Chill above that I didn't see in my Google searches. I kneel before his search-fu. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the sources were already in the article. Joe Chill (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't check the "External Links" - too used to assuming they're the non-independent sources, especially when there's also a "references" section. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources mentioned. Dream Focus 03:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petit Apple Pie[edit]

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. Prodded in January and it was asserted that it was notable and the prod removed. Article tagged for notability. No other sources have been produced since then, just the single reliable source that has been there the whole time. Its length alone does not make it notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As there is a review in Animage, and there are 18 volumes in the series which spanned 5 years, it is extremely likely there are other sources out there. However, due to the age of the series, it is very difficult to find those sources as they are going to be only offline sources. This crusade of yours against this article is getting old, Collectonian. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an obvious, common-sense Keep. An 18-volume work printed over 5 years by a notable publisher is highly unlikely not to have generated some coverage. A comparable, contemporary work printed in the US would be easy to source. Because of the age of these books, their printing in Japan, and the tendency of Japanese press to stay off the Internet, this sourcing will be difficult to find. Insisting that something like this pass the same standards as articles on current/US pop culture would result in biased coverage of pop culture on Wikipedia. And we're against that, right? Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Insisting it pass the same standards as any other manga series is not biased. It's length alone does not make its notable. WP:BK does say "long series" = notable. More than enough time has been given for sources to be found. The article is basically a copy of the same article on the JA wiki with the OR paragraph removed, and one source added. It has not expanded or improved in 2 years. What else is to say about it except that it exists? Its age is not a pass. I've found more than enough reliable sources on German novels published in 1923, while speaking and reading no German, to write full articles. Other foreign works of varying ages have produced appropriate, reliable sources. Its being Japanese is not a pass either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously never been to Japan if you think it's that easy to find print articles from nearly 25 years ago. Japan is about 10 years behind the States when it comes to putting old content online, so until (or if) they put it online, the only way to find these things is to try to find magazines and newspapers from that era which would cover topics such as this. It's really not as easy as you think it is. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should of course feel free to create articles on German novels published in 1923. -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I just found that WP:BK actually addresses this point here. To quote: "From a pragmatic standpoint, the vast majority of books upon which articles are written which invite a notability judgment call and which find their way to articles for deletion, are from the modern era. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature." So, a super-strict interpretation of the main points in WP:BK would seem to out of order in this case as this series is not contemporary and not in English, thereby making sources that much harder to find. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that old. It was published in the 80s. That is still fairly contemporary. Trying to claim its too old for sourcing is a a cheap argument, IMHO. If it were from the early 1900s, yeah, but 20 years is still contemporary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. You don't seem to have experience trying to find old magazine articles in Japan or you would know that 25 years is quite a long time and printed information from that period is exponentially more difficult to locate than such things about contemporary (within the last 10-15 years) topics. You don't know what you're talking about here. You really don't. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

. Contemporary time is generally 1945 to the present, not just the last 10-15 years. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For movies or historical events. Twenty years is a lifetime in manga -- even barring the substantial difficulties sourcing things that age, it's only in the last decade that mainstream publications began to take manga seriously. At the time this was published, it would certainly have received coverage from appropriate sources, but ones even less likely to make their content available than the already frustratingly reluctant major press. There is a ton of coverage for this type of series available in older magazines and in nonfiction books that are long out of print and nigh impossible to find. Barring an obvious reason for claiming something is non-notable -- cancellation, lack of JA Wikipedia article, lack of any sources -- we need to view articles like this with a more lenient eye, or we're simply end up biased heavily in favor of modern series. Keep. Doceirias (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

25 years is quite a long time and printed information from that period is exponentially more difficult to locate than such things about contemporary (within the last 10-15 years) topics. Maybe true for libraries; for the web, this risks giving the impression that reliable sources in Japanese about topics that are just ten years old are easy to find: they're not. All in all, Nihonjoe errs on the side of understatement. -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Holding manga to the ridiculous standards of coverage, which other media may get, but you know most manga never well, is ridiculous. The series ran for five years, had 18 volumes published collecting its work, and had many notable manga writers working on it. Common sense Keep. Dream Focus 03:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is indeed not obvious that this series meets any of the criteria in the nutshell version of WP:BK. But WP:BK, though no doubt well intended, is rather a mess. Consider for example: Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. In Japan, ISBNs were used only very patchily till twenty years or so later, certain publishers (and even certain kinds of books) still avoid ISBNs, and the NDL has not acquired (and still seems uninterested in) great swathes of books that draw critical commentary. Still, WP:BK goes some way to redeeming itself with sensible remarks on the "non-contemporary". -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional, unconventional sourcery here at Yafuoku. This is of course not citable for the article itself, but some of it may be worth considering in this AfD as additional quasi-evidence for the very modest claims made in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add those two trustworthy but probably not RS. I should note that those books have no ISBN [50]. --KrebMarkt 11:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Im with Collectonian, if there ARE R.S here then why havent they been put into the article and why does a tag from January 2009 remain? In my opinion tags are little warnings that should alert people to things like this further down the road. On the other hand this is an old manga and Japan is behind when it comes to things like this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the various comments above as they explain why further sources haven't been added. It mainly has to do with your last sentence and the fact that finding printed sources (which is all that existed at that time) is extremely difficult for someone not in Japan (and very difficult for someone in Japan). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nihonjoe's responses appear reasonable to anyone who wishes to be reasonable. 18 volumes of lolicon material in the 80s, sometimes I wish wikipedia wasn't quite as educational. XD Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention it's 18 volumes of non-erotic lolicon material from the 80s. Even more of a rarity. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That series received at least one review from an unquestionable RS, Animage. Being only released in Japan makes further research of RS coverage difficult. Japan is not know to bring their archive/old stuff on the web but is rather know to delete stuff no more "current" see how Animate website works. More aggravating is the time frame of this series which makes it too recent to have any historical interest and thus made into digital archive or subject to scholars papers, and too old to have received benefit from the Internet boom. 25 years is a lot of time. Back then we were still in Cold war and Nelson Mandela was still in jail. To conclude on that part it's clearly daunting to find more coverage.
That article does not comply of any of the five criterion of WP:BK however i have confidence that this article would comply WP:BK #1 if circumstances were not that dire, so my vote is Keep.
Furthermore, on whole project side view having few somewhat "jury rigged" articles rather than "real holes" in our coverage of 80's manga is an acceptable trade-off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrebMarkt (talk • contribs)
Keep Agree with others that early 80s is far enough in the past to make tracking down RSs difficult. Use of non-contemporary/older works guidelines seems prudent. Argel1200 (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The series is very, very dead, and the books within it are available very cheaply. Thus any assertion of notability that might be inferred from the very existence of an en:WP article doesn't raise the slightest suspicion of conflict of interest (something that can't be said for many articles on books (e.g. Half-Life). As for assertions of notability (implicit or explicit) within the article, we're just told that Tokuma (a notable company that deserves a far better en:WP article than it gets) put out 18 volumes, which (with my extremely limited knowledge of manga) seems quite a lot. The rest, of which there is little, is flat description, which in no way aggrandizes the production. It's sourced to two places: (i) an article in a magazine put out by Tokuma itself and (ii) a page (actually a couple of pages) of a website. The former doesn't sound good, but the magazine (which I don't think I've ever seen) does sound authoritative in its way and certainly an article in Comics Journal (from Fantagraphics) would be a good source for factual information about (if not assertions of significance of) a publication from Fantagraphics. The latter is from burikko.net, a site I hadn't previously heard of (and one that reminds me yet again that much of Japanese "popular culture" will always be utterly alien to me). It's unclear who created the website or why its content should be credible; I'd look askance at any attempt in WP to source assertions of significance or merit to this website, but these two pages are no more than flat descriptions of the contents of each of the 18 books, and I see no particular reason to question their accuracy. So all in all the sources seem adequate to their careful application in this modest article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuotantotalo Werne[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. hardly any third party coverage [51]. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It's hard to judge whether there are sources because they'll likely be in Finnish and limited to quite specialised communities, but given (a) the wide work it claims to do in Finnish television across a very large range of foreign animation, and (b) the attention that animation fans tend to pay to the quality (or otherwise) of their local dubbers/distributors, I would have thought that if the claims are true, sources necessary to pass WP:N are likely to be findable. (In terms of specific reference to policy, I'm citing WP:FAILN: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources.") - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 02:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 02:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit I'm going a little on guesswork here, with similar reasons to Dustformswords. I checked the fiWP article, [52], & I see it lists a good many of additional productions; checking back , many of them have articles on the shows in the enWP, but the links weren't added--and so it seems the shows were notable in each country. They seems to have dubbed a remarkable number of famous children's shows, which I would consider to give them a notable position in that industry. DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tjampuhan Hotel[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. no real third party coverage [53] LibStar (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, hotel is mentioned in literature and should be expanded. Gryffindor (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence of how it meets WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is WP:CORP the sole criteria for consideration? --Merbabu (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to show if it meets WP:N or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below, and the article now that the Spies connection has been inserted. --Merbabu (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ A gsearch turns up quite a bit, but all of it seems to be promotional in nature. Wading through those results, I couldn't find anything from reliable sources. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additional sources added indicating historic notability of hotel. Jujutacular ^T · C 09:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 02:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 02:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Qworty (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article did not assert it's notability. I have added this (although probably poorly) - ie, it is the site of Walter Spies's 1930's home, one of the most important figures of 20th century, indeed, modern Bali. The hotel has it's own chapter in "William Warren, Jill Gocher (2007). Asia's legendary hotels: the romance of travel. Singapore: Periplus Editions. p. 202. ISBN 978-0-7946-0174-4.". Remember, AFD is about subject notability, not article quality. --Merbabu (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Walter Spies had a home here does not automatically make it notable (see WP:INHERIT). Here is a gbook link to the book you mentioned: [54]. It shows the first page of the chapter. It certainly looks significant, but our guidelines say we prefer multiple sources. From looking at the book, I suspect more sources exist, and I encourage anyone else that knows of any sources to post them. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One clear source is enough. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what happened to significant coverage test as per WP:GNG? otherwise we'd be creating billions of articles with one clear source. LibStar (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are some more sources documenting the Spies connection. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite notable; historic, even. You can stay in Spies' house. Beware the monitor lizards down by the river. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 13:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i've added two more sources. I don't care to look, but sourcing could be found to describe this as the most famous structure on Bali connected to the colony of European artists that established there between the wars and had wide influence on both the development of modern balinese art, and the global tourist economy that drives it.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Students Federation[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete unless WP:RS can be found. Right now the only link is the organization's own blog, which definitely does not meet the burden. Might be a case of systemic bias, but the article doesn't seem to lend to that. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of roller derby leagues[edit]

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

An absolute horrorshow of failures of verifiability and notability; not one listing in one hundred is sourced to anything more than the subject's own website. This needs to be burnt to the ground and something solid built where it stands. Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've taken in interest in the list. It would certainly benefit from more people who are interested in its topic and who are capable of constructive edits.

Replacing primary source links with citations is on the agenda, and if you had visited the discussion page you'd have seen that we're starting to work on that, along with other edits to better achieve the list's purpose, which is supplementing the history of roller derby article, charting the growth of the sport from its inception to the present day — something thus far accomplished with a list requiring no original research or arbitrary standard of notability.

Those of us who have an interest in the subject are confident that nearly all of the leagues have mainstream press coverage. So the WP:V issue certainly isn't insurmountable and is more a matter of finding the time and doing Google searches, and following all those links and checking out the leagues' own press archives.

But ultimately, it's notability that is the key issue, for even if you succeed in destroying the list, it'll just get built up again without any concrete standards of notability beyond the general notability requirement: mainstream press coverage. At Talk:List of roller derby leagues#History and rationale I pointed out at least two proposals, Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, which would provides notability standard for sports leagues and lists spun off from articles, respectively, but neither of those efforts seem to be going anywhere, and I'm not aware of any others on the table. This seems to leave us with the status quo, satisfying general notability, yet you seem to feel the list needs to satisfy some higher standard of notability that you haven't articulated.

It would be nice if you would participate on Talk:List of roller derby leagues and help us establish some criteria of notability and verifiability for the list which would fulfill its purpose to your satisfaction, without introducing bias by omission, increasing our maintenance burden over what it is currently, or otherwise resulting in an unenforceable standard. In other words, those of us with an interest in the topic are dedicated to improving the list in its current form and we welcome concrete proposals for improving the list, if not direct participation. Perhaps you could muster something beyond just dismissing it as a "horrorshow" that needs to be "burnt to the ground"? —mjb (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This list received attention from the nominator and others after being mentioned at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#inserting an external link that does not take you where it sould. My comment there about the inappropriate lead refers in part to Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. The lead was written in accordance with WP:STAND#Lead and selection criteria and was intended to discourage additions to the list without references. In hindsight, it wasn't successful and probably needs more work, which I'd be happy to help with if you really think it's high priority. IMHO, efforts would be better directed toward seeking better references and more complete info in the short term, and discussing notability and pruning options for the long term. (I've gone ahead and rewritten the lead. Thanks again.) —mjb (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's unfortunate that this is at such a primitive state, but it seems to be under active development. There are sufficient sources for the general subject that it should be possible to develop criteria. As for the GNG, I suspect that there will be the necessary 2 or more articles from the relevant years in each of the city newspapers. We could do some actual research now, or wait for Google News to catch up. Temporarily, a start might be made by splitting off the professional leagues. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other than having been a "horror show" that should be "burnt to the ground", the only reason for deletion seems to have been that it was not "sourced to anything more than the subject's own website". From what I can tell, there were links to individual pages, but these were not considered to count as "sourcing", since they weren't in the "ref></ref" form, but that technicality (and it was a technicality) has been fixed. Roller derby may be cheesy, but it's been a business for more than 75 years, and it's no less encyclopedic than other forms of entertainment. I'm not horrified. Mandsford (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - Verifiability is a requirement, not an option. This list is chock-full of supposed entities for which there is no evidence of their existence, other than what purport to be their websites. There is nothing to preclude somebody from making up their own fantasy RD league, setting up a hoax website for it, and then adding it to this list. Heaven knows there are precedents (hoax bands with hoax discographies and articles on their hoax albums, for example). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the prices of the free encyclopedia that anybody can edit is that there is always the possibility that false information can be added to any article. In that sense, they're all horrorshows, I suppose, but the WFTDA teams seem to be real enough [55]. Perhaps someone will agree that the article needs to be burnt to the ground. Mandsford (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to the unfunny sarcastic nomination, the subject is notable and the list could be brought up to grade by anyone willing to work with the subject. Warrah (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's verification of the existence of the vast bulk of the leagues on the list. What the list is beginning to provide that that page does not is determination of when a league formed and when it ceased to exist. Oh wait, here's more verification. That's a list of all USARS member clubs. Here's 78 WFTDA leagues. And 24 more WFTDA Apprentice leagues. Lets not forget the six OSDA leagues. I'm not entirely sure that all of you actually exist, but that hardly calls for arson. TimBRoy (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but definitely clean up, even if it means rewriting the article from scratch. The subject is notable. In the current form, the list/article is full of contradictory information, and it seems to list some leagues as different when they in fact seem to be name changes for the same league. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Thanks for the constructive feedback, but is there an example you have in mind? Please let us know on Talk:List of roller derby leagues what information seems to be contradictory or duplicated, and we'll fix its content and/or presentation ASAP. Whatever it is, it's not obvious to me, but maybe I'm too close to the subject. Thanks! —mjb (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful reference for editors working on related articles and for users researching the field. Improvement of the article is needed. Nomination is mean spirited and does not assume good faith on the part of the many editors who have contributed to this article. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes, it's a mess that needs to be seriously cleaned up (I would suggest removing every external link and citation which uses a primary source, and start from what's left), but the wording chosen by the nominator is exactly what many people find frustrating about Wikipedia. Perhaps a refresher of deletion criteria would help him discover that this is a textbook case of a topic that needs to be improved, not deleted. That improvement should include clearly establishing that the topic of the list is notable, and removing all the external links to specific leagues since that's probably the only standard which isn't arbitrary. I'm okay with someone nominating an article for deletion without understanding when it's appropriate (that's how we learn), but can we at least avoid language like "burned to the ground" while we do it? (Full disclosure: I think roller derby is cheesy myself.)--otherl left 15:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Chu[edit]

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

Non-notable car show model. A smattering of unsourced media appearances of no demonstrated importance. The refs are all non-RS profiles/interviews and GNews only adds one more of those to the mix among several articles on other persons of the same name. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generic glamour model with no significant credits, even counting all the unreliably sourced/unsourced ones. GNews search finds nothing consequential regarding her, but suggests there's at least one much more notable person with the same name. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saydie[edit]

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

I tagged it as speedy but changed my mind out of consideration that finding Filipino sources is more difficult. I found only self-published pages when I did my google search; news shows nothing. But maybe someone else will find something. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry, because it is really hard to find references for Filipino Indie Screamo bands... And I delete the tag because i just delete accidentally... I want this page to stay in wikipedia because I'm still finding sources for this page to be factual not fictional ---Isadora1234 (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doing google search pulls up mainly webpages that fall under WP:SPS, doing a google archive news search pulls up zero references to the band. Therefore it appears that the band doesn't meet WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 01:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Smith[edit]

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

nominating this because of WP:NOTINHERITED. she gets coverage for being the daughter of the very famous Will Smith. gnews [56]. those wanting to vote keep have to ask would she get coverage without being related to someone so famous? LibStar (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has had roles in several movies, so probably notable enough. Northwestgnome (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Will Smith#Personal life as my suggestion. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no evidence that she is notable on her own. Qworty (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:ENT, her roles are significant from what I can tell. decltype (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Just squeezes by on WP:ENT. She probably wouldn't have gotten the roles or as much coverage for them without having famous parents, but she did. (However, I am going to nominate the article about her brother, as he has even less independent notability than she does.) --RL0919 (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone finds a place to merge this, please contact me and I will be happy to undelete the article for you. NW (Talk) 01:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Michael Beer[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker Orange Mike | Talk 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from WP:LOCALINT : "Sources from local papers and other materials found within the city or town can be used, and may even be exclusively used to establish notability." And..."Most likely, an article on a local interest will be created by someone who lives in the area, has previously lived there, or has spent a significant amount of time there. This is perfectly acceptable, and in fact encouraged, provided that those creating these articles are aware of these guidelines". With MPR and KFAI as the two prime notable sources, I think this satisfies.Kafkacafe (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=If the notability of an existing local interest article is questioned=

Start out by placing the ((local)) tag on the article. Leave it there for a while.
If no improvement is made to show notability beyond the local area, suggest the article be merged
If after a while, still no improvement is made, complete the merge"

From WP:LOCALINT I have yet to locate a source outside of the twin cities.Dethlock99 (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So...is there a chance for merging? Kafkacafe (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely obscure person who is just starting out in film. Not notable at this point. Qworty (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for his area. I've seen far less notable local interests remain here. The Zwinky (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - no offense, but that sounds a lot like the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - shoot, you're right.The Zwinky (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find a reliable source outside of his local area. Dethlock99 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems to be that the subject is indeed notable enough to have an article NW (Talk) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Kinser[edit]

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

Well written, but largely full of rumor and personal details. If you remove all that, you have an award and a position at a lobbying firm. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:Notability is satisfied when there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That is satisfied here, by the March 2003 profile in the Philadelphia Magazine and for the 2002 John Baer profile. Further, the subject is a and well-known prominent lobbyist is Pennsylvania and has several successful significant lobbying victories. The subject is frequently mentioned in Pennsylvania media, like the Pittsburgh Tribune Review and Pittsburgh Post Gazette as well as Google News--Blargh29 (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please balance the article away from personal details. One source that isn't available on the 'net, coupled with a focus on the personal life regardless of notability as a lobbyist seems like a BLP vio to me. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I considered that before writing the article. First, I don't think it's a BLP problem, because every word is cited to a mainstream source, and her denials from those articles are included. Just because something is unflattering, doesn't make it a BLP violation. Also, the Erdely article even speculates that the (well-reported) rumors surrounding Kinser help advance her effectiveness as a lobbyist. In fact, her personal life is completely intertwined with her status in the lobbying community, (which is the source of her notability) considering her marriage to the Speaker of the House, the messy divorce, and the continued sniping between the two. About the off-line source, just because a source is not available for free online, doesn't make it unusable within this context. --Blargh29 (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources show she is notable. I would like the article to be a little more pleasantly written, but maybe that can't be helped. Northwestgnome (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The whole basis for this biography being on WP is a sleazy, soap-operaish break-up involving a politician. A person ought to be known for more than that in order to merit a biography, and certainly not one this extensive. The sleaze didn't even have any serious consequences, unlike the Lewinsky matter. This is just a bio coat-racked on sleeze. Get rid of it. Qworty (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sleazy or not, the article is about a person who is the subject of multiple, in-depth, independent profiles on her lobbying efforts and her personal life. That passes the general notability criteria. Also, please note the additional sources attesting to notability identified earlier in this AFD.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Agreeing with Qworty. (I'm the nom, but figured I'd make my voice heard for the relist) Xavexgoem (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is the subject of multiple independent stories in reliable sources, meeting WP:NN. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies the GNG, well-documented claims of significant impact apart from any scandals. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert defelice[edit]

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

Delete, non notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability provided, and the article reads like something from a book jacket. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Fails every notability standard for a bio. Qworty (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Staberinde (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced BLP. After a couple of quick Internet searches, I can't find anything about him, except for one article from over 10 years ago about a development in the Boston area. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a PR WP:PUFF piece having no WP:RS. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pervasive Data Integrator[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. This is a promotional article about a non-notable, non-consumer software product.

Essentially, this article is just a features list --- a mere sales brochure. It reads like unambiguous advertising, extolling the product's virtues:

can automate the integration of data movement tasks on an event-driven, real-time, or regularly scheduled basis....
extracts, aggregates, replicates, transforms and loads data from disparate sources, including between very old legacy and mainframe data and applications and new systems....
has a very wide range of connectivity...

The only reference given in the article is to a press release, a routine announcement of an acquisition, no substantive coverage; the other references are to internal sites. Google News Archives seems to yield mostly press releases announcing new versions and casual mentions that the product was used. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I've made this sort of comment before, but anyway. This class of software is limited, and consists of big expensive products used by big corporations. This, to my mind, gives them some kind of de facto notability. These products do not come and go every day. Having an article on each one is potentially very useful for comparisons. I don't really agree with your characterisation of "unambiguous advertising". Of the three statements you cite, only the phrase "very wide range" strikes me as advertisational. The rest is information. For example, "on an event-driven, real-time, or regularly scheduled basis" describes what would be the three main triggering modes. (Disclosure/explanation: I used to work for Sunopsis, before it was acquired by Oracle. I don't know anything about Pervasive Data Integrator. I assume I wrote the stub when I was researching these products and trying to find out what Sunopsis actually did...) Stevage 04:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree a bit with your characterization: This class of software is limited, and consists of big expensive products used by big corporations. But to me, these factors mean that it's a long shot that anything is going to appear in a useful, independent source about the software. And, any independent reviews are moreover going to be circulated among a tiny group of people with a professional interest in this kind of package. That kind of coverage, even if it exists, does not translate into notability. The more expensive, technical, or exclusive it is, the less likely it can achieve notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that this class of software will not be covered. There are specialist journals covering enterprise level software. Coverage in such places would establish notability. I don't know if that is the case here as I've not yet looked. -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, while I was at Sunopsis, a report from Gartner Consulting came out, comparing half a dozen or so of these products. Definitely a useful, independent source. Only problem: you had to pay to read it. A lot, from memory. Here's an interesting blog post, btw. Stevage 05:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Gartner has come up before. That they're reliable is pretty much a given. But ultimately they're a consulting firm; their clients are their real editors. And their actual reports have less circulation than a hometown newspaper. Being covered in a Gartner product comparison does not equal notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree. I would not use just eh fact of coverage in Gartner as an indicator of notability as they will report on any company one of their clients makes a query about. -- Whpq (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tons of press releases. I found [57] and [58], but this does not represent sufficient depth of coverage to establish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The above discussion seems to relate to novelty not notability. If I harvest 100 carrots and find one that has grown two roots that look like a pair of legs, that may be novel and when I was a kid that was exciting to find but no wire service ever picked up the story to make it notable. However, the other comment made above motivates my interest in defining something called "obscure but notable." The wikipedia criteria concern the geograhy being more than local and coverage depth being sufficient to write a decent article. There is no criteria for absolute popularity AFAIK. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Popularity" is not needed; "notability" is the local jargon, but especially for commercial businesses and products, where seeking to use Wikipedia for free publicity is a legitimate concern, something closer to "historical significance" strikes me as what we should aim for. What I found searching for this product was mostly press releases, generally circulated without comment. The notice and recorded interest of other people independent of the business is what would tip the scales: somebody else needs to have taken an interest in their crowing. This, I did not find. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ugh, enterprise all the consultants I drink beer with know if a product puts the word "enterprise" in the literature it is a codeword for SUCK. this type of software has a limited audience - limited audience means it is not an encyclopedic subject matter. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

- Comment - There are many topics that have a limited audience that are perfectly fine topics for Wikipedia. A broad audience is not an inclusion criterion, and a limited audience is not an exclusion criterion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in a long term view, nobody will care that wikipedia documented Elliptic curve cryptography but not Pervasive Data Integrator. one is important, this is not. this used to matter. that every product on the market is being written about, regardless of actual significance, is something wikipedia is failing to control. the standard now seems to be if two sentences appear in two magazines then VfD will keep the article. that criteria is crap and needs to end. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Perhaps so, but you will note that I did find a couple of sentences in a couple of magazines and find it insufficient to justify including this topic. -- Whpq (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caphyon[edit]

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

Spam, created by a corporate account, speedy deletion contested, prodded, contested by a likely sockpuppet. But still spam, is it not? Biruitorul ^Talk 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is established by the reviews in respected publications such as Macworld.-- Eastmain (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a review of one of their products, not of the company itself. Notability is not inherited, and this remains corporate spam. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not a valid distinction. WP:NOTINHERITED is for keeping out articles about non-notable relatives of famous people. A review of a company's product helps to establish notability for the company itself. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What makes computer companies notable is their notable products. They have sufficient independent reviews to show that. DGG ( talk ) 09:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-exceptional average company making average things. We do not need this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete per nom; this is spam with serious COI issues. Haakon (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is indeed spam, the claim to notability is entirely dubious, and the rationales behind the keep votes are questionable if not misleading. No, the mere notion that one of this firm's products was covered in some outside source (or rather, was not entirely without coverage) is not a guarantee of notability. No, not just because of NOTINHERITED (which, yes, does clearly apply in this case - as anyone can read, it's not, not just, about "relatives of famous people"). It's also because of common sense, burden of evidence and leaning on the side of caution (and responsibility) before letting every mom and pop store make a mark on wikipedia that it fails to have in the real world. But that's just part of it, because a closer look that genuinely gives a damn at those "sufficient independent reviews" will reveal that these mostly come to us from how-to forums and blogs, and that the few such texts to go into any detail other than technical don't appear to mention Caphyon the group at all - meaning that the entry on the company itself is not validated by anything in the sources, and that even such poor sources were abusively cited for something they do not say. Dahn (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwish M.K.F. Al Gobaisi[edit]

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

Not verifiable. Makes claims of possible notability, but we can't let totally unreferenced resumes lie around forever. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, no references to support the article. Tsange ^►talk 15:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a rather more helpful search than the one automatically linked above: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as the editor of two major international encyclopedias/ DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask how you know that? Sure, the article claims he is, but claims must be provable, per WP:BURDEN. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Cello Solos[edit]

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

No notability claimed. The book is a selection of pieces for cello and piano, and while it carries the name of one of the most distinguished cellists, no reason is given why the selection deserves an encyclopedia article. RobertG ♬ talk 16:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this music book. Joe Chill (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Sprayberry[edit]

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

can't see how this 11 year old passes WP:CREATIVE. hardly anything in gnews [59]. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~WP:CREATIVE? Inapplicable.~~ He might pass WP:ENT if it can be shown he has a significant fanbase or cult following, or if his roles roles in multiple notable projects were significant... but I can find no reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I meant WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Understood. Well... doesn't seem to pass either one, much less WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nope, nothing Shii (tock) 06:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriels Fallen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Band is not yet notable and does not pass WP:MUSIC. They have one album on what appears to be a non-notable label. Claims of having opened for big acts are unverified, and wouldn't by themselves make the band notable. After trimming the fat from the article, there isn't much content left, and there appears to be hardly any coverage of them--this is all that Google News can produce. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I just noticed that the article had been AfD'ed before; nothing in that discussion (which closed, after having seen little action, as 'no consensus') makes me change my mind. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. As with the nominator, the discussion in the first AFD doesn't change my mind on this, and I'd add that the keep opinions in the first AFD were very tepid. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trak kart[edit]

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

Article is largely original research, repeated assertions that not much is notable, too many maybes Thedarxide (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this is likely original research, and at any rate, notability is not established - no evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 01:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members[edit]

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

No reason to have as a separate list. If this information is so crucial just add an age field to List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The solution proposed in the nom would not work, because this is a list of living Hall of Fame members, while List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame doesn't distinguish between dead and living Hall of Famers. So I am not sure I see much of a reason to delete. Perhaps rename as List of oldest living Baseball Hall of Fame members so as to be clearer that does not cover, for example, someone who died in 1988 at age 100. Rlendog (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could do simple age to include the dead ones, or just "Current age" and have n/a for the dead ones. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. Rlendog (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete and revise remaining list if anyone needs the information. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is the very intersection of information that makes an online encyclopedia so much more useful than a printed one. Otherwise, why would we even have wikilinks? We have articles regarding human longevity because it's notable, and of course each individual is inherently notable. If there is a paucity of sources, we should address that issue by fixing the article, not deleting it. I would also bring to people's attention the similarly nominated List of oldest surviving members of the House of Representatives. I have no objection to an appropriate rename of both lists. Frank | talk 12:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG, fails Significant Coverage test (there must exist sources which address the subject 'who are the oldest living baseball hall of fame members' directly in detail). KarlFrei (talk)
There is no such "test"; please see my more detailed comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest surviving members of the House of Representatives. Frank | talk 13:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the topic of oldest living Baseball Hall of Fame members needs to be shown (by secondary sources) to be notable. Abductive (reasoning) 00:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an archive search, and here are some of those hits. Here are more, with titles: Edd Roush, Oldest Living Member of Baseball Hall of Fame, Dies at 94, Lopez was oldest living Hall of Fame member, Oldest living ex-major leaguer has stories to tell, Oldest living major leaguer nears 100th birthday (1 Oct 2009), Feller not injured in parking lot car crash: Bob Feller, who at 88 is the fourth-oldest living member of baseball's Hall of Fame, was unhurt in a minor car accident..., Trouble ahead for Hall of Fame?: Butler was the oldest living former major leaguer and..., Veterans elect '40s star Gordon to Hall: Feller, 90, is the second-oldest living Hall of Fame player and... I could go on; the list is virtually endless. Frank | talk 00:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Baltazar[edit]

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

This is a non-notable person. Please note that the article hadn't claimed that Baltazar had been a professional basketball player until it was "copy-edited" (i.e., completely rewritten) two months ago. This is what it looked like before. So he is just some basketball scout and journalist, nothing that creates notability. Concerning his coaching career, there's no indication he's ever coached a game in a professional league or cup competition, which also would be quite unusual for someone who's that young. Also consider that the article is an orphan and there's strong evidence that Baltazar has written this article himself. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just realized that a former article about him was speedy deleted on 31 October 2007. It had been started by User:Bruno8921 – his user page is quite telling... --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:53, 3 November 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) 01:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:ATHLETE. Needs work, but, definitely notable.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 13:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm – no, not at all. As I explained, he has never played basketball at a professional level. That claim is the result of a copy-editor's apparent misinterpretation of the original text. And yes, I did search Google and basketpedya nonetheless, even tried alternative spellings (basketpedya tends to confuse first names and surnames when someone has as many names as Bruno Baltazar, so I also considered that), and found absolutely no evidence for that claim. According to basketpedya, the club Barreirense has indeed participated in the highest division of basketball in Portugal every year since 2000, but Bruno Baltazar has never been part of their squad. I only included this debate in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions as a matter of form. Apart from that, I'm still absolutely sure that Baltazar wrote the article himself, and I can't see any way how he could have missed twice to mention the fact that he had played on a professional level (if he really had), while explicitly stressing his achievements as a scout, coach, agent, reporter and even lover. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And btw, concerning that tournament at which he has coached a professional team: I couldn't find much about it (in fact, just these two articles), but it apparently is a small pre-season tournament like many others. Even if it wasn't, there's no reference in the article that would prove his participation, and there's no date given. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh. In that case, striking original keep !vote. Needs sources. No opinion either way.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 13:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madboot[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) 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's included in Leo Laporte's tech almanac and the Bangkok Post wrote about it. But that's ot enough for me to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Loyola[edit]

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

non-notable; four minor bit-parts, two only proposed as future projects? There should be a rule to counterpart WP:HAMMER; when your biggest part has appeared in 3 episodes of a series and your only other role was as "College Kid # 1", you don't deserve an article. Ironholds (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability and as piinted out by the nominator, the body of work is insubstantial. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MuZemike 19:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Van Laar[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) 16:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 3 November 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) 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nope, nothing Shii (tock) 06:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication that the subject would pass the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By means of rationale, User:Omarcheeseboro and User:Cirt provide references that this newscaster's notability extends beyond WP:ONEEVENT, which was the substance of the nomination -- Samir 06:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Rovell[edit]

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

Non-notable person who supposedly said something controversial. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it certainly should be expanded beyond wp:oneevent, his bio on cnbc.com shows that he meets wp:creative. He's written books that have received recognition, worked for major networks and interviewed top sport figures.

As for indepedent sources, NY Times blog cites and praises him, Book has praise on back cover (scroll to the bottom). Google searches now show a lot of blogs and stuff about Meb K., but the potential for establishing more notability is certainly there. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:11, 4 November 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) 01:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wonder how many relatively unknown interviewers there are in the world, as the internet grows bigger it is possible to find one or two things about them on the WWW, but (imo) that doesn't make them notable enough to warrant a biography. Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good deal of coverage in secondary sources news, web, academic sources, books. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus Game[edit]

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

Unsourced entirely, only source is the Golden Road fansite. No way could any of this indiscriminate trivia ever be sourced. Survived a bundle AFD in 2007 with no consensus. Tagged for lack of sources since 11/07 with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The_Price_Is_Right_(U.S._game_show), it is not notable enough for its own article UltraMagnus^speak 11:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The detail of this, already in Golden Road fansite, is more appropriate for the Price Is Right Wiki. It isn't Wikipedia's function to duplicate a fan site. The bonus game, to my knowledge, is not notable by itself. Mandsford (talk) 17:51, 4 November 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) 01:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullseye (active pricing game)[edit]

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

Unsourced entirely, only source is the Golden Road fansite. No way could any of this indiscriminate trivia ever be sourced. Survived a bundle AFD in 2007 with no consensus. Tagged for lack of sources since 11/07 with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The_Price_Is_Right_(U.S._game_show), it is not notable enough for its own article UltraMagnus^speak 11:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The detail of this, already in Golden Road fansite, is more appropriate for the Price Is Right Wiki. It isn't Wikipedia's function to duplicate a fan site. "Bullseye", to my knowledge, is not notable by itself. Mandsford (talk) 17:50, 4 November 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) 01:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nope, nothing Shii (tock) 06:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable pricing game/individual element of the series; transwiki to the PoR wikia, but not appropriate here as it has no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Card Game (pricing game)[edit]

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

Unsourced entirely, only source is the Golden Road fansite. No way could any of this indiscriminate trivia ever be sourced. Survived a bundle AFD in 2007 with no consensus. Tagged for lack of sources since 11/07 with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The_Price_Is_Right_(U.S._game_show), it is not notable enough for its own article UltraMagnus^speak 11:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Even when it cites a fan site, it must add more citations. This game raises pricing bids by cards until the player stops, and everybody must know this game still exists. --Gh87 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 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) 01:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable single pricing game from the series; has no indepedent notability nor coverage and not a likely search term -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Nanton[edit]

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

A shameless spin of a "Celebrity Lawyer". Conflict of interest strongly suspected. - Altenmann >t 21:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Nanton is nationally known in his field and is a sought-after speaker. Everything in the article is factual and I believe it should be retained by Wikipedia for informational purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelcan (talk • contribs) 01:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A majority of the references are not even about the subject, but cursory mentions and/or articles in which he has been quoted. If he truly is nationally known in his field and is a sought-after speaker, then the references should support that... not what he thinks of Jordin Sparks' career opportunities. Strong suspicion of WP:COI. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search doesn't show a deal of notability. possible promotion piece. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy's All-American Barber Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kennedy's All-American Barber Club

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

A self-promotion of a nonnotable franchise established in 2008 - Altenmann >t 21:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this franchise. Joe Chill (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe this article should be retained in Wikipedia. This is an innovative new franchise that's catching on fast (51 new locations have been sold) in a difficult economic climate and has also been profiled a number of times in the Franchise Times. The article is strictly informational and not meant as an advertisement by any means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelcan (talk • contribs) 01:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't appear to pass the notability standard for corporations or organizations. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bright Path[edit]

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

A promotion of a fresh new spiritual organization of dubious notability - Altenmann >t 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This organization is the largest of its kind in the world that teaches the Ishaya's Ascension, which is already an accepted entry in Wikipedia. I would think if you accept the belief system as a legitimate entry, then you should accept its largest international institution, whether you think its teachings are dubious or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelcan (talk • contribs) 01:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misunderstood Altenmann's comment. By saying that the organization is of "dubious notability," Altenmann is not questioning the legitimacy of the organization or its teachings. The issue is not with the content of the teachings, but with the notability of the organization based on its having been discussed in verifiable sources. Hope that helps. Cbl62 (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but only if external sources cannot be referenced soon. I searched through about 5 pages on Google for any article on this topic from a new age magazine or something, and though there were many entries from various groups who follow this path, none appeared to be from a third party source. If no unaffiliated source can be found to substantiate some of the claims such as "...the largest Ishayas' Ascension organization in the world" then I'd have to say it should be removed with the possibility of re-creation when better sources are available in the future. A brief encyclopedic mention in the main article, Ishayas' Ascension, about this group should be OK. I thought the overall tone of this article was really just fine, not overtly promotional, but alas no sources. Ebonyskye (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ebonyskye. Or in short, there doesn't appear to be any substantial coverage in third party sources that establishes notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources establishing notability can be found. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice logo though Shii (tock) 06:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any SOURCED content to the article on the founder, although that article is marginally notable and without refs. let the whole thing grow appropriately. with enough references, it can always be broken out.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The lone argument for retention is clearly outshined by the arguments for deletion. MuZemike 19:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyRadio[edit]

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

No claim to notability. No references added in more than year since tagged. Search generates nothing that obviously is "significant coverage in reliable sources" (I am unable to evaluate Chinese language sources, however). ^Bongo_matic 07:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC) ^Bongo_matic 07:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this internet radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the most popular internet radio station in HK, with listeners from the US, Canada, and other places. Raysonho (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You should say "claimed" as there is no authority cites for these claims. And (a) most popular X in HK is not a claim of notability without some additional work; and (b) has listeners frm the US, Canada, and other places is certainly no claim of notability. ^Bongo_matic 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are you too lazy check the alexa results?? As a canadian listener of this station, I often hear people from other places phoning in, including the US, AU, EU, etc... Raysonho (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa shows it as one of the top 2.2 million web sites. While it may or may not do better against a group of its peers, this is not a claim of notability.
I was unable to find data about this from Canada's 2006 census, but in 2001 it appears that there were nearly 900,000 Cantonese speakers in Canada—more than 10% of the population of Hong Kong. It is entirely unremarkable that there would be subscribers from Canada to a Hong Kong news source of any media variety. This goes for the US, Australia, and the EU. This is not a claim of notability.

^Bongo_matic 02:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With your reasoning, there shouldn't be any articles in Wikipedia for radio stations. As most newspapers and radio stations are for local people, they might just all fail your notability guideline.

And back to Wikipedia:Notability (media): unique programming, where in the world could you find 3 LegCo members as hosts of a radio station?? Further, people in China download MyRadio programs via the Tor network -- why do they go all the trouble if this is "just" for a small number of people in HK, or oversea HKers?? Raysonho (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found. The only reference provided is to a forum thread. As to the above arguments: where in the world could you find 3 LegCo members as hosts of a radio station?? This is irrelevant. Likewise, With your reasoning, there shouldn't be any articles in Wikipedia for radio stations. This is also a WP:WAX argument, as this refers to radio stations in general, not web-based content. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it irrelevant??? Did you check Wikipedia:Notability (media) before writing your reply?? Raysonho (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did, and I fail to see, based on reliable sources, which of the criteria this statement strives to meet. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So my statement is not "irrelevant". And related to reliable sources, someone should add references to improve the article. Raysonho (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus whether or not this meets WP:NOTNEWS, or if the individual reliable sources are enough to have this as a standalone article. NW (Talk) 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Miley Save Fuzzy?[edit]

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

Page created as pure promotion of nonsensical Web site. Attempted to flag for speedy and was rebuffed. mhking (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], and [69]. Joe Chill (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We shouldn't give an additional free hit to some crazy fan who needs less attention, more heavy counseling or a commitment. It's sourced as seen above, but by either pop fan blogs, Digg clones, extensions of tabloids or in the case of Cnet, just passing along the 'hot thing' in the blogosphere, which are all disqualified by WP:ELNO. Nate • (chatter) 05:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is indeed mentioned on some blogs and gossip sites, however, the fact that some of those blogs are MSN/MTV-affiliated, and that it is also mentioned on Cnet, E! Online, The Daily Telegraph [70], the Washington Post blog [71] as well as the well-known Perez Hilton blog and the Spanish Europa Press news agency should be enough. The site was also featured on the German Bravo magazine. I'm not trying to promote the website, I'm even against it, but it has already received a lot of attention and I can't imagine being on Wikipedia would make anything worse. Miley herself has responded to the campaign in several interviews. Other websites with a similar premise (Save Toby/Save Bernd) are featured in Wikipedia, so I don't see why this shouldn't be. People who seek information regarding this, should be able to find it here. --Pointbl4nk (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:NOTNEWS (""Routine news coverage of such things as [...] tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article"). The fact that this is happening and is being commented on does not make it encyclopedic. In the alternative, redirect to a mention in Miley Cyrus. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not covered in enough reliable sources, WP:NOTNEWS, ect.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 18:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have received a good deal of coverage in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MuZemike 19:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visa (band)[edit]

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

Band that does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:BAND. The article claims they are signed with Serjical Strike Records, which is a vanity label of Universal Music Group. However, the page about the band at the label's website says, "Visa is not signed to Serjical Strike Records ..." Even if they are signed, they don't appear to have released an album with the label yet, and none of their earlier albums are from a major label or "important indie label." None of the core members is independently notable, no awards, etc. RL0919 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While it could be a typo on the label's website what concerns me is the claim to coverage in the LA Times on their website which goes to a dead link. I couldn't find anything searching by band members names on latimes.com and the band's name is so common of a word that searching feels futile. There is a review from 2007 in LA2day.com [72]. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 01:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. here is the proper link for the LA Times article. J04n(talk page) 02:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thank you for finding the article in the LA Times. I was sort of hoping it would have more. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 11:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The LA Times story (see above) is more about the cause and the event than the band, the LA2Day story is ok but alone doesn't establish WP:N, their label (I also assume that the 'not' is a typo) is good but they haven't released anything on it yet and need 2 releases for WP:BAND. They performed the soundtrack for the film The Witch of Portobello-the best ref I can find for that is this, but the film hasn't been released yet and I don't see how it can yet be considered WP:N which could count for criterion 10 of WP:MUSIC but that alone wouldn't even be enough for notability. If anyone can find a WP:RS or two to go with the LA2Day piece I will happily change my !vote. J04n(talk page) 02:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Suggestions that this page represents a certain POV go unsubstantiated, so it's hard to offer these votes much weight. Overall, though, while renaming is a valid issue that is worth discussing, the consensus here is to keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel[edit]

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

Virtually none of the content is sourced at all, let alone reliably, and there are no apparent plans to provide sourcing. A pagemove discussion has been opened, but the move - if accepted - will contribute nothing to solving the problem. All in all, this seems to be an unusually silly political propaganda article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original article has been tampered with: This is the real article: [73] User Gilbrand removed templates, categorizes and replaced information from the original article. Its all sourced. And I was planning to expand it with more info, sources, and to create stubs. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no significant difference between the versions, and in both of them virtually all the content is unsourced. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The templates and categories were removed and info changed, show me one thing that isnt sourced. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single item on the list is sourced. The only thing that is sourced are a couple of background statements. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of what you have said is true. You can not show me one single sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Supreme Deliciousness (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Supreme Deliciousness has been blocked for 24 hrs for edit warring on List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename. An article identifying former population centers appears notable and legitimate, but the title of the article appears to be pushing a particular political agenda. I would support a renaming of the article as ~~List of Syrian towns and villages depopulated by Israel~~ List of pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights to avoid potential POV in the title name and to conform to the names of similar articles ie: List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus and List of villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict. Cbl62 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified to support The Anome's renaming proposal. 05:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep Its a list of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel, just like there is a list for the depopulated Palestinian villages: [74] Notability is there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose delete of this article be no more than attempt to deny arab culture and promote zionist propaganda that seek to discredit horrible genocide and other atrocity commit by israeli government. This important article about mass destroy & genocide of arab village and town in Golan Heights Ani medjool (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ani medjool appears to be a sock puppet of Supreme Deliciousness, who has been suspected of sockpuppetry in the past. I have opened a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supreme Deliciousness. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - Please do not say "he appears to be" because this is not true. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename mostly per Cbl62. I prefer "List of Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict". If all are known to have been depopulated by Israel which is likely the case (but must be proven) then we could also call it "List of Syrian towns and villages depopulated by Israel." --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt renaming proposal made by Al Ameer son appears to be fine. My concern is to try to avoid advancing either side's agenda and to attempt to describe the list in a neutral fashion. Cbl62 (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is to avoid putting unverified content on Wikipedia. Can you explain how the proposed move would address my concern, considering that the unsourced content would remain the same? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided in the article do appear to verify the depopulation of many former population centers in the Golan Heights -- albeit not every specific entry on the lengthy list of red-linked villages. I agree that verifiable sources should be included for each entry on the list, but that concern is not, IMO, a basis for deleting the entire article. My vote would be to rename the article in a neutral manner and then to follow appropriate protocol to demand sourcing for each entry. To the extent such sourcing is not provided, then any specifid villages that remain unsourced can/should be removed. Cbl62 (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not reliable, and even if they were they would only support an article such as List of pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights. Like any WP:MADEUP, it could become a good article if only the title and all the content were changed. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have posted three more sources for the villages, and will expand the article and list tomorrow: [75]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are not from reliable sources, nor do they support the content of the list. The one that I checked lists towns on the Golan Heights abandoned during the Six-Day War, which is different from the article both according to the current title and the proposed title. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish center for Human Rights, National university of Ireland and Arab Center for Human Rights [76] "Thus, it is evident that the vast majority of Syrians and their families, who were expelled in 1967" "1.2.1 Forcible transfer of civilians from the Occupied Syrian Golan The depopulation of the Syrian Golan of its native inhabitants was the firstmajorabuse conducted in the Golan during and following the end of the 1967 war between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Prior to the occupation, the Syrian Golan contained approximately 153,000 inhabitants; following the capture of 70% of the Golan territory by Israel, approximately 130,000 were forcibly transferred or displaced to Syria proper43and forbidden from returning." "1.2.2 The Destruction of villages and farms With thousands of people forced to leave the Occupied Golan and unable to return, (an estimated 130,000 people), the Israeli military were, for the most part, unopposed in their administration of the newly occupied territory and began a widespread campaign that destroyed numerous villages and farms. The only villages to escape the campaign of destruction were Majdal Shams, Masa’da, Bqa’atha, ‘Ein Qinyeh, and Al-Ghajar, fivesmallvillagesinthevalleyofMountHermon. Israeli settlements were then built in a number of places over destroyed Arab villages and farms, in so doing, control was taken of the land and resources." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the Arab Centre for Human Rights, which is not a reliable source, and your quotes don't support the article's content. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But Rename per Al Ameer son : "List of Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict" Unomi (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Depopulate" is a transitive verb that implies active agency; in other words, depopulating is something that one group does to another group. This source, for example, speaks of flight during the Six-Day War but says nothing of forcible transfer or anything like that. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources, and Supreme Deliciousness/Ani Medjool, whether that is one person or not, keeps adding more unreliable and biased sources to attempt to qualify the article. The fact that there AREN'T any reliable sources to be found, and he is forced to present these sad excuses of sources, only further attests to the ridiculousness of this article. Furthermore, the support to keep this article, as you can see above, is based on his belief that people need to be informed on the "mass destroy and genocide of arab" by the Israeli government. This is a complete joke. It is not objective, it is not neutral as per NPOV, and renaming the article will not change this fact. This needs to be deleted swiftly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.230.182 (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If better sources can be found, I suggest that we Keep but rename to List of pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights or similar less-politically-charged name. Otherwise, I suggest deletion, but without prejudice as to re-creation of the article at a later date. -- The Anome (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But Rename - IF reliable 3rd party sources can be provided. As the editor who initiated the rename discussion on the article's talk page, I would also be supportive the alternate title suggested by Al Ameer son or The Anome's suggestion of List of pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights (I personally lean more towards the 2nd) . I don't think anyone disagrees that there were Syrian villages prior to the Israeli occupation that are no longer in existence; however we must strive to find a terminology that is less politically charged that also satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:RS. No solution will be perfect, but we can at least try to find a resolution that everyone can live with -- at least for the here and now. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Stellarkid (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename per nsaum with his/her caveats. I could live with List of pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights if we can find RS's and use terminology that doesn't characterize events [77] in the usual anti-Israeli way. Stellarkid (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expand I would like to see an article of "List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by the Jews and their henchmen". Just kidding. I agree with Stellarkid on this subject-- the talk page discussion will be beneficial to this subject. Shii (tock) 06:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nationalist POV-pushing, not needed here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep From memory, Syrian and Israeli government figures agree that about 100,000 fled from the Golan in 1967. The topic is therefore notable, and should be sourceable with some work. Another name might be preferable, but that is not a reason for deletion.John Z (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perhaps rename 'List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israeli forces', 'List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israeli forces during the 1967 war' or something similar. Just saying 'depopulated' is a bit weird terminology, it doesn't really paint an actual picture of events. --Soman (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them were not destroyed during the war but over the next few years, using civilian contractors. Zero^talk 01:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename to something more like.. "List of Syrian towns and villages (depopulated or occupied) in the Arab-Israeli conflict". Off2riorob (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename and tag for RS needed - rename into something like List of pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Height, and a tag for RS until this has been worked out on the talk page between the involved editors. Pantherskin (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Discussion on possible name change Talk:List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel#Requested move

*FYI, the above msg.--nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 16:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-The article just seems to be Anti-Israel propaganda. All the sources are unrealible. Delete it.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but rename to something more encyclopedic and improve the sourcing. Since this was a significant event in the 20th century in terms of generating displaced persons, having a list of the population centres that were destroyed during and after the war is appropriate content in my view. Sourcing details can be addressed. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though there are a number of problems: the list of villages needs sources for each name, preferably more than one, and redlinks may be premature. If there are records of some of these villages being of some significant size, and not just arbitrary names for a loosely populated region, they need to be listed, i believe, per our policies on settlments. there are a lot of totally unrelated links that give this an OR or POV taint, which need to be stripped, (all the links to things like ghost towns and villages lost to desert, etc). the nuclear facility should not appear here, as that makes the article about israeli aggression against syria, a broader topic than the title warrants. I support a renaming such as "Depopulated Syrian settlements from the 6 day war" or "Syrian settlements destroyed in the 6 day war". i know that name doesnt directly address the aggression directed at syria by israel, but that fact can be addressed in the body of the article, and of course in links to the war itself. naming the article as it is creates a huge POV problem. the name implies that israel was solely to blame for this, and denies that "blame" must go both ways, regardless of how much more horrific one sides actions MAY appear compared to another. i dont see other articles like: "list of german villages destroyed by the allies" and i could find only one article with a title using this kind of wording: Khachkar destruction in Nakhchivan. its a subtle point, but article titles seem to be extremely neutral in overall tone, esp. when discussing controversial subjects. and please, lets assume good faith. IF people commenting here have an overt zionist or antizionist (or other) agenda in other areas of their life (which is utterly ok by me, i have my agendas in my life, wouldnt deny them to others), set that aside while here, and set aside bad faith comments about others, or bad faith comments about what a deletion or retention may say about our process and culture at WP. this article could easily be deleted for poor sourcing (which as i said i bet could be found for at least SOME of the content), which is no reflection on whether anyone here is agenda pushing, or even if WP has an agenda. we dont WANT to have an agenda, so were all trying to NOT bring an agenda and trying to help each other avoid that. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is another page I know of which has the word "destruction" in it: Destruction of sites associated with early Islam. Chesdovi (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject for which there are enough sources to make a good article. As for the name, it is fine given that all of the 130 Syrian villages depopulated were destroyed ("completely levelled", accordingly to Baruch Kimmerling, as I noted on the talk page in the section on renaming). There is nothing wrong with stating verifiably facts. We don't water down the truth just so as not to offend people. Tiamut^talk 18:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Tiamut, it's obvious your opinion is biased about the subject. Not only that, but all the sources cited were not reliable. As for the article, It's badly written. I really see no reason to keep this article around. Except if we find good sources since this could be a really good article if rewritten.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Olivera, please comment on content, not contributors. And for your information, I just voted "oppose" to renaming List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus to "List of Arab villages destroyed during the 1948 Palestinian exodus", because in that case, not every village was destroyed. In this case, reliable sources like Baruch Kimmerling, an Israeli historian, say following Israel's conquest of the area, almost 130 villages were completely levelled.

Comment - I checked the book, and the self-description alone on the back cover makes it clear that this is not exactly the realiable source we are looking for here. A partisan and opinionated voice yes, but nothing more. Pantherskin (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your opinion regarding Kimmerling's partisanship is frankly irrelevant. His book is published by an academic press and he is an expert in this field. He is WP:RS and the information is WP:V, whether you like it or not. Tiamut^talk 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is published by Verso, the self-proclaimed "largest radical publisher in the English-language world". Doesn't exactly sound like a non-partisan academic press. Pantherskin (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, another source supports Kimmerling's assessment. Virginia Tilley writes of the Golan Heights: "It is a visually compelling region, with 33 Jewish settlements sparsely scattered through a craggy moor landscape marked by 131 destroyed Arab villages, which were bombed and/or bulldozed by Israel after the flight in 1967 of some 100,000 Arab residents." Tiamut^talk 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Oh dear. I guess I will stay out of this then. I can't find any good or bad sources on Google. I don't like your sources Tiamut. But I can't find any either. I think this article has potential, but it's very far from good right now. I still say we should delete it.

Keep and rename if necessary if reliable sources are found for each village and farm. The red links should be removed as I doubt any of these villages are notable enough for their own pages. The template should also be deleted. Chesdovi (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search for "Golan" or "Syria" from http://www.internal-displacement.org/ , which appears to be produced by the Norwegian Refugee Council, an apparently independent and respectable source, might be a good place to start. This CIA map of the extent of the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights might also be useful. -- The Anome (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redlink farm. Who has decided what constitutes and how large a village is? Did each locality included numerous homes and hundreds of people? I suggest that first some articles be developed so their legitimacy/notability be judged. MY OR: I've seen many single buildings around the Golan, and a few of what might be considered a small village, but over 131? This might be POV. --Shuki (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki has a point. I mean how valid is it to included in the list "108 farms". How notable is a farm? Maybe 10 people live on it?! Unless we are to measure notability by the number of livestock it rears! Chesdovi (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To this point, the pro-side has been able to provide at least two WP:RS indicating that the verb "destroyed" is an accurate description of list. However, per Chesdovi it is a redlink farm of ex-"villages" unlikely to be notable in their own right and I have nominated Supreme Deliciousness's template for deletion on that basis here. If the delete/rename side can provide WP:RS that these sources are incorrect, I'll happily reconsider. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I don't think the word 'destroyed' is particularly controversial or non-neutral. It simply describes what happened. It's words like 'depopulated' that are controversial and disputed because they touch upon the forcibly expelled vs fled narrative wars. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redlink farm. Article is not reliably sourced. I concur with Shuki. I also find the article name highly POV. Delete it. Shlomke (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Shlomke (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC) (removed by User:Malik Shabazz)[reply]

This above notice no longer exit on judaism page. i not delete it from judaism page, User Shlomke delete it. So since it no longer list, it should no longer be here on this page. Maybe it belong striked out but i do not know how to do that. Ani medjool (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shlomke (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: does anyone have access to a pre-1967 atlas published by a mainstream publisher containing a detailed map of, or gazetteer for, Syria that might be usable as an independent, verifiable, reliable source for the names of the populated places given here? Or, alternatively something like this map, cited as "Portion of Dimashq (Damascus), Syria; Lebanon, Joint Operations Graphic (AIR), Series 1501 AIR, Sheet NI 37-9, Edition 4. Original scale 1:250,000. U.S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency, compiled November 1972, revised July 1998, air information current through 5 April 1999. Not for navigational use", which seems to show older settlements? -- The Anome (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is certainly possible (with some work). As a start, I will upload a very detailed 1943 map that shows all the villages at that time. Zero^talk 01:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. There is an issue about the best name, and there will always be a question about the inclusion of some of the localities. But it is a fact that in the 1967-9 time frame a large number of villages on the Golan Heights were demolished by Israel. There is no question about that whatever (see for example "The Fate of Abandoned Arab Villages, 1965-1969" by Aron Shai [78] which quotes Israeli internal documents from the demolition project). Since this happened, I can't see any reason why an attempt to list the villages is a bad idea. Looking above, the only substantive reason for deletion is the difficulty of sourcing. We have well-developed methods for dealing with that problem; it is not a reason for deletion. If necessary, data can be moved to the talk page and reinstated as sources for each village are identified. Zero^talk 10:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The abstract of the article you cite does not support the contention that even one of the towns on the list was destroyed by Israel. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that be in the abstract? Anyway, the paper discusses the general situation, not individual villages. Examples: "As the pace of the surveys increased in the West Bank, widespread operations also began on the Golan Heights, which had been captured from Syria during the war (figure 7). Dan Urman, whose official title was Head of Surveying and Demolition Supervision for the Golan Heights, was in charge of this task. Urman submitted a list of 127 villages for demolition to his bosses." ... "The demolitions were executed by contractors hired for the job. Financial arrangements and coordination with the ILA and the army were recorded in detail. Davidson commissioned surveys and demolition supervision from the IASS. Thus, for example, in a letter dated 15 May 1968, he wrote to Ze'ev Yavin: 'Further to our meeting, this is to inform you that within a few days we will start demolishing about 90 abandoned villages on the Golan Heights (see attached list).'" And so forth, all carefully cited to the Israeli archives. Zero^talk 01:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This excerpt, if accurate, would also not support the contention that even one of the towns on the list was destroyed by Israel. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why is Al-Marsad aka "Arab centre for human rights" any less RS than other NGO's? See the following description of them in this UN document here. I have done no research other than finding this reference, but certainly no need for a speedy delete here. This article should stay and writer allowed to develop this page and one for Al-Marsad (if he chooses) to support the supposition that this is a RS NGO. Jgui (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many NGOs are not obscure, demonstrate some commitment to rigor and accuracy, and are not obviously partisan and radical. But creating an article based solely (or mainly) on any NGO would be a bad idea. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At the time of this writing, the vast majority of the list remains unsourced, and there is still not a single item on the list that is sourced to anything other than the Arab Centre for Human Rights, which is not a reliable source. Retaining an article sourced solely to an obscure and radically partisan organization would be a very problematic precedent. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Im working on the list: Source is reliable: Arab Center for Human Rights in the Golan Heights which is an independent non-profit legal human rights organization, UN document co-authored by Declan Gannon, legal researcher Al- Marsad, and Dr. Ray Murphy, senior lecture Irish Center for Human Rights at National University of Ireland, Galway. There is also a lot of interviews from refugees in the source.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Althougth certainly not a neutral source in itself, it is definately not a run of the mill reliable source. This is because of, amoung other things, the dedication to the destroyed village in the preface. Chesdovi (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher of the paper has an impressive website; unfortunately the organisation is bereft of staff and board members. Chesdovi (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Board members and staff are listed here: [79] Zero^talk 03:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've already mentioned that they have a university lecturer on board. That doesn't make them a reliable source; see WP:RS. In the future, I don't suppose it would be too much to ask that you create encyclopedia articles after you've found reliable sources for their content. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source has been called reliable by several editors: [80] [81][82]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it has been called unreliable by many more. Thankfully, that's not how this game works.Breein1007 (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it reliable either. See WP:RS. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously,...firstly: it is indisputable that Syrian towns and villages *were* depopulated/destroyed by Israel...secondly; it is actually rather funny to see people argue that the sources for this do no meet WP:RS....while at the very same time Arutz Sheva apparently is reliable. Wonderful. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Anti-Israel propaganda. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Israel did not destroy lots of Golan villages? On what basis? Or are you just expressing your political viewpoint? Zero^talk 05:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's hard to see what the problem is. As far as I know no reliable (or otherwise) source from any POV has ever disputed that many villages were destroyed and depopulated. There just aren't two sides here for a neutrality question to appear. Of course if we are going to list obscure villages, we are going to need to do some work and use some obscure (but reasonably reliable) sources. But I thought that that was a major aim of wikipedia. John Z (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please. An article entitled "destroyed by Israel"? Its very title is in-your-face evil. --Firefly322 (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article title is a problem that can be discussed on the article talk page. This page is for discussing a deletion proposal. Zero^talk 09:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the pages that record depopulated/destroyed villages during the Arab/Israeli conflict, whether in BM Palestine, Syrian, Lebabon or Israel etc. should be all lumped together on one single page called List of town and villages depopulated or destroyed during the Arab-Israel Conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeeh, why??? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps a single page that lists all depopulated/destroyed Syrian villages together with all Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Chesdovi. That would be a much more NPOV title and more general list that encompasses more articles. This would mean that rather than having a list of 50 redlinks with 2 actual articles (which aren't even notable to begin with), we could have a proper list with some useful articles. In terms of grouping previously-Syrian villages with current Israeli villages, I disagree. That doesn't make much sense... and what would you make the title then?!?Breein1007 (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are all population centres which have or had people living in them in the same region on the planet over a certain period of time during which certain events happened and continue to happen. Obviously using that as a title isn't ideal. It kind of makes sense to me once I take down the Syrian and Israeli flags fluttering in my brain. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I very strongly disagree, we shouldn't mix todays israeli settlements with destroyed Syrian villages, Chesdovi has tried this before mixing in stuff with the article that has nothing to do with it to undermine the topic: [83] [84] and there is an article for palestinian villages: [85]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Chesdovi has "tried this before" is irrelevant and certainly does not make his suggestion any less valuable, Supreme Deliciousness (sign your posts). Combining these topics would make a more general article with more notable information rather than a list of redlinks that nobody cares about. You have not made any comments about the merit of the suggestion, you are only trying to personally attack the person making the suggestion, something unacceptable on Wikipedia. If you have any comments regarding the actual idea then go ahead and explain why you think it is such a bad one.Breein1007 (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered, there is a list for Palestinian villages, so there is no reason for there to not be a list for Syrian villages, and just because you do not care about these villages doesn't mean other people don't. In this vote the majority of people have voted to keep the article, so the majority of people see it as notable. And what redlinks are you referring to?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merging the following 3 pages:

List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict
List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus
List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sourcing is in progress (though more reliable sources probably are preferable), the subject seems notable enough (though the individual villages may be another matter), the title may be changed if necessary. Huon (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What makes these villages more notable than, let's say the 240 villages evacuated by Saudi Arabia? Chesdovi (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you create a good quality article on those 240 villages I will help you defend it against the pro-Saudi wikipedians who want it deleted. Zero^talk 01:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UN have investigated the destruction of at least one of these towns and villages and condemned it as a breach of the Geneva Convention. The Saudis, on the other hand, seem to be evacuationg their own citizens to prevent civilian casualties while they're fighting the Yemeni rebels. The Golan issue has received vastly more coverage. That makes these villages more notable. Huon (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UN condemnations do not bestow notability, neither does the plight of a large section of people only gain notability when measures against them are taken by a foreign government. The fact that the Mid-East conflict gets more coverage indicates systemic bias, nothing else. I agree with Zero0000. The villages have just as much notability as the Syrian ones. The difficulty is getting the infomation. Chesdovi (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If these villages and towns were indeed destroyed by Israel, there is no reason not to have a list article about them. --NSH001 (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reason as NSH001. Frederico1234 (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I concur that the content is valid but the current name of the article reflects a partisan POV. Of course, the naming could be worse, e.g., List of peaceful Syrian villages pillaged and annihilated by the iron hand of the Zionist infidels, but we really should strive to have a neutrally-worded title. Cbl62 (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "annihilated by the brutal Zionist cowards" sounds better. Chesdovi (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously, a title like the one suggested above, List of pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights, is accurate and neutral. Discussion as to what resulted in these population centers, and the differing points of view, can appropriately be dealt with the in the text of the article, but the title should be neutrally worded. Cbl62 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Frost (preacher)[edit]

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

NN bio, unsourced. Both quoted books may be from a vanity publisher.-- Syrthiss (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Also, a quick web search reveals the same text being used in various online Christian directories [duckduckgo.com/c/American_television_evangelists] --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability; no evidence thereof from Internet seacrhes. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No substantiation of notability; unsourced bio per BLP. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete ASAP BearShare998 (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BIO. South Bay (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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