< 12 November	14 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. Arguments from the recently created accounts are weak and lack substantial evidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tkabber[edit]

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

Delete. Unreferenced article about a subject of dubious notability. JBsupreme (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable software. I can't find any reliable (!bloggish) independent in-depth reviews of it. Close might be [1] brief mention in a round-up style article that makes claims of notability about this group. DMacks (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep : It is a very important XMPP client ! You can look on the World Wide Web ... — Neustradamus (✉) 03:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The XMPP Standards Foundation know Tkabber : http://xmpp.org/software/clients.shtml; http://www.ohloh.net/p/tkabber; official debian package http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=tkabber; ... — Neustradamus (✉) 21:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep : Tkabber is definitely not such a buzzword piece of free software like GIMP, but it is one of "big three" XMPP/Jabber clients (Psi, Gajim, Tkabber) and the first of them to gain certain advanced features. So if you're considering deletion of this page, then please be systematic about this and also expunge the pages of all other notable XMPP clients and possibly all other instant-messaging clients. As a person who wrote the bulk of this page, I can honestly say that I'm not completely sure about whether Wikipedia is really a place to describe software, but I just followed what appeared to me like a system: there are many pages describing well-known pieces of instant-messaging software, cross-linked using categories etc. As to "press coverage" (i.e. notability) — please note that it is an instant messenger oriented towards experienced users and thus its users are not counted in billions; lame editors of "IT-oriented" on-line journals are not usually interested in such software because writing about it will not move their article to the top on slashdot and reddit. Khomoutov (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — Khomoutov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- 'it is one of "big three"' is a viable claim of notability, as is "the first of them to gain certain advanced features". Is there some source that supports those statements? DMacks (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's hard to give precise sources as we're not in the world of scientific papers. Also no one usually cared enough to create feature comparison charts between competing pieces of software. Anyway, here are some results of fossile excavations: a) an interview with Tkabber's creator which discusses what innovation was introduced by the project, b) this commemoration talks about Tkabber mentioned in Jabber Journal and also has interesting info on death/survival ratio of XMPP clients. I fail to prove such things like pioneering proper implementation of various types of file transfers and other "techie" stuff due to the reason stated above. Khomoutov (talk) 00:35, 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) 07:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gananoque haunting[edit]

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

Prod/prod2 for inability to find any source for this. No relevant google-hits for this name and either month/year or town-name. Deprodded by creating editor without supplying anything to aid verifiability. DMacks (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a shred of evidence. Could this be advance promotion for the film project mentioned at the end of the article? Favonian (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article gives no sources. I have searched and can find no evidence of any mention anywhere of this incident. For example, a Google search for "Frank Edwards" Gananoque strangling produces no hits at all, "Gananoque haunting" produces nothing not referring to this Wikipedia article, and so on. It really ought to be speedy-deleted as a hoax, but perhaps it is not quite blatant enough for that. I firmly believe it is a hoax, and if by any remote chance it isn't then it is not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable at best, probably just promotion for thr film mentioned. Edward321 (talk) 13:58, 19 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 Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 (magazine)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 21:38, 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 22:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll venture a Keep on this one. How hard did you look for significant coverage? I just spent about 3 minutes and found that g3 won the 2009 Publication of the Year award from Stonewall Awards, which I just added to the article along with references. I don't think it would be hard to find other supporting evidence to substantiate the claims to notability already in the article. I say keep this and give it some time. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Several minutes. There's no need to insult me for finding a source that I didn't. Joe Chill (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok that's fair. I sincerely apologize that my comment was insulting to you. It was not intended to be. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:41, 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 redirect to Micachu. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy Friends[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS: mixtapes are in general not notable and there is absoultely no indication this is otherwise. Redir to artist contested by author. I42 (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The original redirect seems sensible. TN X Man 22:14, 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 22:39, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Godwin[edit]

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

Acting deputy commissioner of police for London, not exactly a high profile role (unlike the commissioner, who is a politically significant figure). Flagged for tone since march and not fixed, only one source, a news story. Most of the Google hits are news stories, we seem to be blazing the trail in publishing a biography. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 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 22:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
Keep. The awards and honours listed, including an OBE, and this BBC News article are enough to demonstrate notability, I think. – Eastmain (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The senior positions in the Met are much more senior than the equivalent top-level posts in other police forces. The fact that BBC News considers this appointment important enough for a story in its own right seems enough for me. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- With the high profile of the Met and its natioanl responsibility in certain areas, I think that Deputy Commissioner is probably a notable post, but this should be an exception. I would oppose deputy chief constables being treated similarly. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for terrorism[edit]

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

POV essay. I only recently discovered this one after finding Justification of Terrorism in Islam, which is also up for deletion for the same reason. Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 20:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article has been changed back to how it was a year ago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.223.124 (talk) 20:24, 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 22:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no content here that is not covered in other articles. this doesnt appear to provide enough content to be a seed for an article on this subject, and can be safely deleted. if someone wants to create a full article on this subject, this article isnt necessary and is horribly incomplete.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A section on justifications given by groups or people accused by legitimate governments of terrorism would be useful in Terrorism or Definition of terrorism, but now that I've removed the recent POV additions with dubious sources (details of deletions on article's talk page), there's little left to merge. MuffledThud (talk) 08:14, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Closure[edit]

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

Contested prod... article fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS, WP:OR and WP:V... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:52, 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 22:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unconfirmed, unverified, unsourced. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Intelligentsium 03:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Warrah (talk) 23:27, 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. treating as prod Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evatic[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 19:10, 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 22:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artie Diamond[edit]

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

contested prod, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that the article lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources is exactly why this article needs to exist!!! i plan on getting the Inside Sports article from Colossus Collectibiles http://www.colossuscollectibles.com/mags/insports/home.html#1982 . when i read this article in 1982 i never forgot Artie Diamond's name. ive googled him and never find anything about him. i finally have been able to track down this article. ive seen other posts on the net from people asking for a biography about Artie Diamond. if you click on my 2nd reference there is a biography link on Artie Diamond's page and it is blank. that is why this article needs to exist so others can add to it.--Matthew049 (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Matthew049[reply]

You're misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. Encyclopedias are tertiary reference sources, meaning that they include only information we're able to verify first in multiple secondary sources. Those come first, then the Wikipedia article.--chaser (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I can't find very much, but I think it is enough. There are at least a few articles with a couple of hundred words a-piece, the first two hits in Gnews archives. If you keep going there are articles of a few dozen words, so those may be "trivial mentions" for the purposes of WP:BIO. However, the two longer NYT pieces with the Inside Sports piece is enough to establish notability.--chaser (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not convinced that this meets the requirement of "significant coverage". --RadioFan (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i understand the dilemma it creates, the desire to make a topic known despite not being able to find an abundance of info. would posting more of the IS article help? or is it simply more references that would strengthen the article. and thank you for the help!!!! Matthew049 (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Matthew049[reply]

Comment making the article meeting guidelines for inclusions would help. More reliable sources is what is needed. I'm just not finding any.--RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 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, JForget 22:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many of his fights were covered in the New York Times but because of how old they are only headlines or short paragraphs are available, two of the more lengthy ones have been incorporated into the article (thanks to chaser for finding those). The article has been cleaned up, still needs work but is on the right track. If this were a contemporary fighter with a similar record inclusion would not be a question. Between the NY Times mentions and the Inside Sports feature (31 years after his last fight!) he easily meets WP:GNG. I seem to remember another fighter biting someone's ear off... J04n(talk page) 03:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Being featured in a sports mag article 31 years later is something. Abductive (reasoning) 06:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes notability for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE as he has competed at a fully-professional level of sport. --Jimbo^[online] 11:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being featured on a reputable independent publication ensures a person's notability.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It mentions they had a five page article on him. Notability was established. Dream Focus 14:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. J04n(talk page) 13:32, 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) 07:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Alathara[edit]

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

Blatant WP:AUTO and WP:COI from a WP:SPA. This is a completely non-notable individual without any verifiable significance that would satisfy WP guidelines. He's just a minor bureaucrat in the Roman Catholic church. His writings all fail WP:BK too. Frankly, I'm shocked that a priest would come here to egotistically write so much about himself. Be that as it may, no matter how much he goes on about himself, he doesn't satisfy WP:N Qworty (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.--Staberinde (talk) 21:41, 11 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 22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete over-expanded biography of someone who is not actually notable. The bulk of the article does not even discuss the person who is the subject, and what is left is not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ResKnife[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The last AFD closed as no consensus because of users !voting keep because of two sentences. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I'm not usually a big fan of people renominating articles because they didn't get their way the first time. But I think in this case I agree with the nomination, and with the admin who closed the last AfD that the keep votes were "exceptionally weak". In my opinion the sources available are not sufficient. Reyk _YO! 03:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not against the rules to renominate articles when the result was no consensus. Joe Chill (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
who cares about some minor open sores software that does some minor function? I don't even care if it gets referenced. Notability means above average. Average software gets referenced, exceptional software is worth writing about. this is not exceptional, delete it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Comment Beyond the book already located, I found one more, Safaribooks - I havent cared to register an account to look in detail. Per WP:PRESERVE, have alternatives to deletion been considered, like merging the two lines of info into ResEdit or Resource fork or creating an overarching Mac application bundles or whatever the topic is about with a redirect. This would preserve the info and still not violate guidelines for what merits stand-alone articles. Incremental purging of articles of marginal notability is quite myopic and could lead to loss of info that, cumulatively, might be significant. I have no special interest in the topic, I dont know anything about it, I wont do the work, but again, I'm also not the one pushing for deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- recipe books are not the type of coverage we care about. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:17, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Gayle We Trust[edit]

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

One sentence, does not establish notability, no references, no progress. fetch comms 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Media coverage of this new web-exclusive show is found at MediaWeek [2] and TV.com [3]. The one sentence is in need of expanding. Warrah (talk) 13:44, 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 22:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I added two references to the article. Its a "branded web series", i.e., a spamseries where the funding sponsor is incorporated into the storyline (often painfully).--Milowent (talk) 16:18, 20 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_postcode_districts_in_the_United_Kingdom. I'm unsure that this is a deletion issue. There seems to be agreement that neither list is optimal at the moment, so I am closing this as a tentative Merge in order that involved editors can work on it. If some sort of a merge takes place then this article can be redirected to the other (or vice versa), but would not be deleted anyway in order to keep attribution. Black Kite 15:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outward postcode list[edit]

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

Content fork of existing List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom article. MRSC (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Seeking clarification:~~ A few days ago I started a discussion at Talk:List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom#Duplicate lists of postcode districts relating to Outward postcode list, proposing that it be reverted to a redirect to List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom but also seeking to make progress on the layout of List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom and related pages. Is the AfD proposal actually for deletion or simply for reinstating the redirect (which I would support) and, if the latter, is an AfD appropriate? "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." On the face of it, a restored redirect would seem to be more useful than a missing page. If necessary, we could transclude to move the existing discussion to this page, or redirect/cross-ref from here to the existing discussion. The Talk page discussion is already cross-referenced on the Talk pages of some closely related articles.
– Richardguk (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried redirecting and was reverted. Instead of edit warring with an anon IP it is better to go via this route. I would note there is no need for a redirect as the article has no inbound links and its title is somewhat unclear. List of postcode district outward codes might be worth creating as a redirect to the existing postcode district list, but this can be deleted. Additionally the list contains numerous errors and has no sources. MRSC (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether a single revert is a bit limited to classify as an edit war. Certainly the revert was misguided, and certainly deleting the page would help to prevent future reverts (though would not guarantee the creation of forks by other means). Perhaps, if no one objects during the AfD process, we could conclude by reapplying the revert with a suitable explanatory note, instead of deleting the page itself at this stage, and then wait to see whether more permanent measures are justified? It is possible that the page has external links and is on watch lists so there may be a potential advantage in channelling these to the correct page. (Re: List of postcode district outward codes, seems unlikely anyone would ever guess at that page name so no need to create that article IMHO.)
— Richardguk (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any links in and to be honest external links are not reason enough to keep an article which is essentially a WP:FORK. [4] MRSC (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Delete then Redirect might be more appropriate in this case? This would avoid potential edit warring as the history would be deleted and would still direct users. Would this still enable it to show up in people's watch lists? Zangar (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think in AfD discussions "Delete" is taken to mean "remove the page and its history completely and not just its current contents" (see the AfD article and the deletion glossary), so you can either Delete or Redirect but once you have deleted there is no page from which to redirect so you can't do both. Are you recommending Redirect? — Richardguk (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: Delete then Redirect does mean to "remove the page and its history completely and not just its current contents", then you can set up a clean article with the same name as a redirect. This can be found under the Redirect bullet at the aforementioned deletion glossary. So at this stage I am recommending Delete then Redirect, but if the concensus is that the single revert is not enough to warrent deletion, then I'd be in favour of a Redirect. Hope this helps :) Zangar (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, apologies for not reading the glossary properly – but thanks for putting me right so politely! I've mentioned below that having the history available might assist in refining the List of page, so I'm minded to stick with plain Revert, but accept that Delete and Redirect is preferable to a simple Delete. So we seem to have split 4 ways at present – but at least everyone has been respectful of the merits of each case! — Richardguk (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete. There is a case for keeping this article in that this is ordered by postcode number, whilst the other article is ordered by place name . There again, that might not be be a good enough reason. Either way, this is something that is better discussed through a proposed merger, to decide which details in which articles should and shouldn't be included. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure this is the most practical option but I agree in principal to some extent, which is why I started the broader discussion at Talk:List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom#Duplicate lists of postcode districts prior to MRSC's creation of this AfD, though I sympathise with MRSC's reasons for starting the AfD too. I think we can make both articles better than the sum of their parts, and in fact I created a prototype article demonstrating a revised layout that is more concise and has sortable columns. Even so, the grouping of post towns by postcode area at List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom means that it is in practice not very difficult for someone searching for a particular district to find it in the alphabetical list, since districts too have areas as their parent in the hierarchy. Editors have been dabbing the Outward article since it was reverted, so any delay in deleting or redirecting it again is likely to lead editors to unwittingly waste time editing a redundant page. Also, it is not clear whether the co-ordinate data in the Outward page is open source, so there are added reasons for not deferring for a merger discussion. By putting the redirect back in place, we can take our time to reach consensus on a revised version of the List of article whilst still having the Outward page history to refer back to and without uninvolved editors getting distracted into dabbing or linking to the superfluous page. — Richardguk (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (but Without Prejudice to a possible future Delete): Though the previous redirect was reverted, this only happened once so there is very limited evidence so far that a delete is required; if reverts continued in future, the case for deletion would be stronger, so redirecting for now should not cause problems and is more in line of the spirit of Wikipedia in channelling rather than removing misguided and forked page names. The pages are sufficiently similar that there is no need to delay further for a separate merger discussion prior to improving the List of article. — Richardguk (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible search terms should not be redlinks; "Outward postcode list" is a plausible search term for a British user; so deletion is the wrong call. But this is a content fork at present, which is not acceptable and it should be returned to the parent article. A redirect outcome seems the only sensible course.
While I was researching my !vote for this AfD, I couldn't help noticing that List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom seems not to be a sortable wikitable. Why not?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom isn't sortable at the moment, there's a discussion about that here: Talk:List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom#Duplicate lists of postcode districts, as well as the structure of information. Zangar (talk) 07:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks. I think that because of the first pillar, which says rather clearly that Wikipedia is a gazetteer as well as an encyclopaedia, we need detailed information on postcodes and postcode areas (which are, after all, geographical locations). I also think that somewhere in Wikipedia's mainspace, there should be a single, sortable list of UK postcodes. The one in Richardguk's userspace seems ideal, and I would certainly support putting it in the mainspace, ideally somewhere easy to find and certainly within one mouse click of whatever article you get when you search for "postcode".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:41, 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 22:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. Outward postcode list is not a plausible search term. Firstly Wikipedia list articles are named List of X not X list. Secondly outward postcode is an attempt at a technical phrase not used in everyday conversation: I think the Royal Mail says a postcode has an outward part and inward part. Two lists of the same things is undesirable and if there is a move to make the lists ordered, tat would be a great improvement. Sussexonian (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing about the list in this format is that it gives easy checking that a postal town and county is correct for a specific postcode. Providing the List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom was made sortable, merging this data with that page would make sense with further links then possible to the specific wiki-pages for each postal district —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.42.171 (talk) 14:24, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom King (highwayman)[edit]

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

Tom King was a fictional construct of William Harrison Ainsworth in his novel Rookwood (novel) and appears to have been based on Matthew King, a real-life colleague of 18th-century highwayman Dick Turpin.

The article appears to be mostly original research. It is riddled with errors, such as "Turpin fled to York where he was later arrested for sheep stealing", and "Turpin accidently shot King with his pistol" (this latter sentence is based on an eye-witness statement that appears embellished).

I suggest that the article be deleted, and a redirect be placed to Dick Turpin. Parrot of Doom 15:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Not sure about the redirect though, because of the Matthew/Tom confusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: with Dick Turpin. Plenty of references for Tom King, but you'll be hard pressed to find any which do not also reference Mr. Turpin as their main focus. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to merge. The article contains nothing that isn't already mentioned in Dick Turpin, and anything that isn't is either written as fact from fictional sources, or made-up rubbish. Parrot of Doom 17:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tom King is, as far as I am aware, a real historical character. At least, the Encyclopaedia Britannica seems to think so! Deb (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The encyclopaedia Brittanica is incorrect. Dick Turpin only ever consorted with a Tom King in Ainsworth's book. His real-life accomplice was Matthew King. Tom King was fictionalised in Rookwood, but also later in Tom King, the Hero Highwayman, or, Stand and Deliver, and Tom King the Dashing Highwayman (Sharpe p174). Both Sharpe and Barlow, both experts on Dick Turpin, state explicitly that Tom King never existed. In every other source, not a single one I have found gives its sources for the existence of Tom King. Parrot of Doom 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who are Sharpe and Barlow? Tom King was the name by which Matthew King was better known - see [5]. Deb (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Matthew King has never been known as Tom King. Tom King is a fictional character based on Matthew King. People who identify the latter as the former, are simply incorrect, as I have repeatedly pointed out. Parrot of Doom 23:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The National Archives say that Tom King was the nickname of Matthew King, as do other sources. Where is your evidence that he has not? If you wish to move the article to Matthew King (highwayman), I have no objections. Deb (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The National Archives offers no sources for its claims, and that page would very likely have been written by a non-expert on the subject, as a quick web summation of the document advertised. Neither, for that matter, does the Encyclopaedia Britannica offer sources, which cannot even get Turpin's baptism date correct. I have two very sound sources to verify my claims. One, Sharpe (2005), which offers a fairly significant list of historical documents and published works, and the other, from the ODNB, which is written by Derek Barlow, author of a well-respected book on Turpin that I haven't yet managed to find an affordable copy of. If you can find a single mention anywhere of a Tom King working with Richard Turpin, before Ainsworth's Rookwood was published, then I'll happily apologise. You won't though.
      - I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue. The above article offers no reliable sources, and everything I have said is demonstrably correct. If you want to ignore the plain truth staring you in your face, well that isn't my problem. As for a move, if that happened then this article would become a two-line stub. Parrot of Doom 18:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I get the picture. Your experts (one of whom you admit you haven't even read anything by) are the only real experts. Any source I quote must therefore be wrong. That's not how wikipedia works. If you will give me an explicit citation or any evidence at all that Matthew King was not commonly known as "Tom", I'll be glad to reconsider my opinion. So far, all we have is your word for it. Deb (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        ODNB, Sharpe, James (2005), The Myth of the English Highwayman, Profile Books ltd, ISBN 1861974183 p. 132, pp. 154-155, p. 174. By the way, where did I ever say that I hadn't read anything about Dick Turpin by Derek Barlow? Parrot of Doom 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It would be useful if you could quote the relevant paragraph to save me having to go and order it from a library, since you have it to hand. Deb (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You can consider all of my above postings as a citation. It would also be useful if you would assume good faith. I'm not jumping through any more hoops, I have too many other things to work on. Parrot of Doom 14:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Same here. If you quote an obscure work from a little-known "expert" as the only primary source for your statements, you can expect to be questioned on it. Deb (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't quote Sharpe as the only primary source for the confusion between Matthew King and Tom King though, did I? Or do you want me to copy the ODNB entry for Tom King also? Because I won't be doing that either. Parrot of Doom 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you wouldn't/couldn't quote, I looked further and found this review of Sharpe's book. It would seem to cast some doubt on his status as an expert. Deb (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the article casts some doubt on his thoroughness by highlighting errors he made in modern history. It finds no fault in his research of Turpin's actual life. A minor problem I've already noted here. Now you can go and find something to pick over regarding Barlow's 1973 book, or his ODNB entry on Dick Turpin, while defending a badly-written poorly-sourced article full of nonsense with links to the frankly awful Encyclopaedia Britannica. Parrot of Doom 16:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're just digging yourself in deeper. You won't cite any primary sources, you won't quote from the books you've read which you know are not generally accessible. What conclusion do you expect others to come to? Deb (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No doubt once I've copied the several paragraphs of text, you'll accuse me of making it up, and will demand scans, just as you tried (and failed) to question the reliability of the Sharpe book. To hell with that. All the information you need I have already provided, in the form of an ODNB biography of Dick Turpin, and a good-quality source which I've provided page numbers for. Its up to you if you want to verify them or not, because I won't do it for you. Believe me, or don't believe me, I no longer give a shit. I can't be arsed arguing with people who cast aspersions on my honesty, and who try and defend poorly-referenced articles such as the one under discussion. Parrot of Doom 19:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Deb, in your zeal to have this article kept, I think you have forgotten than Tom King's relation to Dick Turpin is specifically noted as an invalid criteria for an individual's notability. Unless you can show that Tom King has received significant third-party coverage apart from his supposed relationship with Dick Turpin, the WP notability guidelines on this situation are clear. GreyWyvern^⚒ 19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't doubt you'll find enough in the revised article to justify keeping it. And as yet, there is no consensus to delete. Deb (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Deb, your Britannica reference is prefaced by a note indicating the content was automatically extracted from their main article about Dick Turpin as a search result. eg. association with Turpin (in Dick Turpin (English criminal)). Britannica does not have a separate article about Tom King. GreyWyvern (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, so it's their main article on Dick Turpin that says Tom King was a real person, then. Deb (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am a real person too. Why don't I get my own Wikipedia page? :) The issue here is notability, and besides the tenuous like to Dick Turpin, Tom King wasn't notable. I think, if anything, we should follow Britannica's example on this and mention Tom on the Dick Turpin page, instead of giving Tom his own article. GreyWyvern^⚒ 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tom King is already mentioned on Dick Turpin. Parrot of Doom 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        facepalm: I mean that we should follow their example and not have a separate article for Tom King. I know he is already mentioned on Dick Turpin's page :) GreyWyvern^⚒ 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sorry, I see what you mean now. I completely agree, but my opposition to the article in question is that it makes fiction appear as fact. Even were we to have an article on Matthew King, it would be a stub which almost certainly wouldn't be expanded. Parrot of Doom 22:13, 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, JForget 22:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The current article seems to be factually correct correct, and is supported by the DNB entry for Turpin, with the relevant paragraph reading "Turpin then took up with Matthew King (then, and since, erroneously identified as Tom King), whom he may have known already, and stole a racehorse called Whitestockings, which was soon traced to a stable behind the Red Lion in Whitechapel. In the ensuing ambush on 2 May, Turpin again escaped, but Matthew King was shot and later died of his wounds." [http/www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27892] . BTW, there are two Tom King's in ODNB with full articles, and neither is him: King, Thomas (1835–1888), pugilist, who has a Wikipedia article at Thomas King (boxer) [6], and King, Thomas (1730–1805), actor and theatre manager, who does not have a Wikipedia article. Anyone who wants the text of that article to work from, email me, as he is unquestionably notable. The present article discusses the fictional character, who is notable as such, the real person corresponding to him, and the misnomer. (I have not found whether or not there was a real Tom King as a highwayman.) The solution would be to make the article about the fictional character only, explaining the origin of the name. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Severn Escarpment[edit]

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

No sources can be found which use the term Severn Escarpment, therefore it is doubtful whether it requires an article — Rod ^talk 13:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, no significant coverage. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep: I found some sources - seems like a valid a geologic feature. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 19:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are indeed "escarpments" parallel to the Severn on both sides of the estuary, west and east. However, there is no feature which is given the proper name "Severn escarpment". What the single cited source refers to is an escarpment near the Severn. It is an entirely different feature to that referred to in the original article, as it is north rather than south of the river; it has no proper name; it is not a noteworthy feature. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:18, 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 22:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can argue notability for a reason other than the fact it exists. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:46, 19 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 04:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia School of Broadcasting[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be an education institute of any (proper) type, and I can't find anything saying that it is or providing third-party verification. Proper schools are fine, but this screams diploma mill to me in capital letters. The problem is that I can't find anything that directly verifies that; it's just little hints. The website is designed by a five year old, which is instantly suspicious, and I cannot find any proof of the claims made (that Lou Riggs and Al Epstein taught a course, that it was mentioned in Letterman and various books, that it was the official NFL school). You'd think that if any of this was true, free-press-releases.com wouldn't be the only third-party source I can find. Ironholds (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- Could list policy or guideline reference to the article; just calling it names or calling it subjectively negative things doesn't count as a deletion justification. Web page design in particular is I doubt something we ever have, should, or will make a claim about an article regarding. I'm not automatically disagreeing with your take on the article and some of that is quite suspect, but the discussion does need to be Wiki-based! ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a guideline reference, I linked to WP:GNG early on. My website-like comments are countering the standard assertion that all schools are notable; this thing screams diploma mill, with the layout being an example of suspicion. Ironholds (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never doubted your reasoning, but I understand it moreso now... I really had no idea that there was no WP:SCHOOL guidelines to follow; those were proposed and recjected. This quite surprised me. Oh well, opinion placed below. I never did doubt your evaluation. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I find it rather odd that there's no selected/written WP:SCHOOL-type guidelines. This means if it's some types of private education or early childhood care, adult continuing education, etc, that notability would be oddly vaguely to discuss, kind of like discussions on a person or band no one has ever heard of but has at least a little info. What a 'Diploma Mill' is can be explained, but it's still complicated. Thankfully, this seems a lot simpler than that. There seems to be no note of accreditation or actual 'school' identity and cohesion. Not one inch of this this article contains that would lend a shred of credibility to the sole source (official website). Since that alone can't be used as a source, and the article says a lot of quite specific things without any citation. If one were to try to decode what was possible advertisement text, what was true and what might be downright wrong, I'm not imagining there being much of an article left. Unless at least 1 of the 23,000 supposed alumni can come around and improve things, this is rather embarassing to have listed. If this were a biography article instead of a school, it would most certainly have been blanked for hoax-like claims and deleted in turn. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I can find quite a few references that mention this school (which appears to be an unaccredited trade school, but which had branches nationally and offered courses by mail, thus giving it a national reputation), but not much that discusses the school in detail. If we can strip down the article to only include facts sourceable to reliable sources, the article may be worth keeping. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link them here, please? I couldn't find much other than press releases and the like. Ironholds (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are 189 Google Books hits and 334 Google News Archive hits. Granted, a lot of them are just directory listings or incidental mentions, but there are some which seem to imply that it's a school that the reader is supposed to have heard of before. "All that stuff for which Columbia School of Broadcasting charges $1,000 -- we teach them in less than an hour." [7] "Well, I never saw him at the Columbia School of Broadcasting. I guess he was too busy studying for a sportscasting career by playing tight end." [8] "It's like being invited to go to Columbia University and then finding out it's the Columbia School of Broadcasting." [9] "It wasn't as if Andre Dawson had slandered Ernie Banks. Or had slipped Harry Caray a phone number for the Columbia School of Broadcasting." [10] "Scott Brady is filling in during the transition and sounds like he just graduated from the world-famous Columbia School of Broadcasting -- very awkward." [11] "If I had met her at her granny's when she was a wee child I would have marched her right out of Mississippi and enrolled her in the Columbia School of Broadcasting at 6 and waited for her to grow into the role as the Queen of the Airwaves." [12] Are references like these helpful in terms of writing an article about the school? Not very. But do they imply that we are supposed to have heard of the school already? Yes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I'm down to weak delete, but mostly from those culture quotes and not from the google hits. Almost 100% of book hits are on a single of one book which just list it as I'd assume a direct for something. Since I can't find the book from 1960something or on Amazon I've no idea how to check it. The news hits are 100% local papers, about 90% obituaries and another 5% almost look like criminal bios ((I am not in ANY WAY suggesting that is related to the school)). The last 5% or so? Well, I'll give AGF to them for the most part, except that the article headers seem to be completely unrelated, and since it's behind the evil pay wall I can't check them all at length... but yeah, I'd still give AGF to ones that look dedicated to that topic but I didn't see much/anything. A few have amusing quotes like "since he went to Columbia School of Broadcasting no wonder he didn't make it in the biz", but that's actually a + for keep if added to your quotes. I'll admit, this one is getting complicated... ♪ daTheisen (talk) 00:27, 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 21:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN school. No reliable third party sources. Hipocrite (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this doesn't appear to be a true school, or truly notable. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have very conflicting opinions about this one. I believe the topic is notable, but the article that was nominaed for deletion was an advert for a school that doesn't look notable. Columbia School of Broadcasting is a very well-known name to me due to its pervasive television advertising, as noted in the third-party source that I added to the article. (Note: The main subject of that article is an apparently unrelated school with the same name that was embarrassed to share the name.) I found one source that indicates that the school was based in Los Angeles. It's not clear that the current incarnation of this name (based in Vienna, Virginia, and advertising with very cheesy websites) is related that formerly blanketed the airwaves with its advertising. I found another 3rd-party source that states in passing that the original Columbia School of Broadcasting is defunct. I have a hunch that this small operation in Virginia has acquired the name and is claiming to be the same outfit. I'd like to see a sourced article about the school that existed for several decades (and I'm trying to find sources). --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 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. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doorology[edit]

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

Doorology appears to be a proposed area of academic study which has not gained any traction. Lars Frers introduced a paper on it at a York U congress. But there is scant sources to support this as something that has gained any academic recognition. The reference [13] provided in the article is from Frers, and as such is not independent of the subject. And inline external link [14] provides a passing mention in coverage about the conference. In my own search for sources, all I could find was [15] which is by Frers. Google Scholar provides nothing to establish this area of study as notable. Whpq (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A 2000 book, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Woodworking‎ calls a section Doorology as a joke, but the study of doors as a scientific endeavor has no practicioners, no sources and needs to be deleted from Wikipedia and human collective memory. Abductive (reasoning) 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This just amounts to a made-up field. WP:NFT. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:33, 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 merge to Roosevelt family. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Coat of Arms[edit]

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

Note that the person mentioned in the caption is Alexander Liptak, and the person who did most of the edits on the page, as well as put the content on the Roosevelt disambiguation, has the handle "Xanderliptak" Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So, this article was added to the Roosevelt Disambiguation page (here), then moved to its own article. I'd be inclined to accept the American Heraldry Society as a reliable source, but the image in the article does not match the images at that site. The painting is impressive, but we can't use it without a source that shows it to be accurate, either by an authoritative source providing it as an authentic example of the coat of arms, or by the painter showing where he got his information on what the coat of arms is to look like. Neither appears to be the case, here. I don't know that we need this article, and I'm not sure where Heraldry fits into our notability guideline, so no comment on deletion for the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the image does match the blazon provided by the source, please read the source again. I agree an article dedicated solely to the coat of arms of those named Roosevelt is unnecessary. Perhaps renaming the article to ‘Roosevelt (surname)’ would be appropriate and also fall in line with other articles like Bewick, Kennedy (surname) and so on. I simply find it odd to have an article named ‘X’ that has a series of links, then have a mirror article named ‘X (surname)’ that has all the same links with only an additional four or five small paragraphs. But, so be it. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 18:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I did read the source, and the image in our article is not represented there. Each of the four examples from the source holds elements that are combined in the image here - very well, I add - but my concern was the synthesis of the various elements, the stylistic decision regarding the helmet (oriented differently than in the examples, for instance), and the stylistic decisions regarding the shields at the bottom (combining two shields with a split banner, rather than the individual shield+banner shown in two different examples, neither of which use the shield designs present in our article's image). It bumps up against WP:SYN and WP:OR. I very specifically did not recommend Delete, above - but nor have I said Keep. I need to think about it, but there are valid concerns here. Enough to torpedo the article? I don't know. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the source, then you saw the blazon reads, “Argent upon a grassy mound a rose bush proper bearing three roses Gules barbed and seeded proper.” That is what is presented in the painting I provided. As you can tell by the differing images in the source, styling is irrelevant so long as the blazon is met. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 03:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Key word there is "the painting I provided". I nommed this partly because I felt that it might have been created to promote the painting, and partly for Exact's reasons of notablity and truthiness Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the history of the Roosevelt families to promote a painting. Rather, I made the painting to illustrate a part of Roosevelt history. Having an article to explain the origins and history of a surname is not a new or uncommon idea to Wikipedia, see List of most common surnames. I am also not setting out to delete images and replace them with my own, but found certain articles without an emblazon or a full emblazon, which I am able to provide. However, as you may be able to tell, they do take some time to create, so, like any artist, I would appreciate the recognition of my efforts. Also a point, proper citation requires paintings and images to note the artist, even ones in the public domain. While this may have fallen wayside with Google images and photo hosting, hotlinking and so forth where the details of an image have been lost, it does not mitigate the responsibility to cite an author of any work when appropriate. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 04:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xanderliptak, none of coats of arms you've uploaded into articles are actually 'free' (you've put restrictions on them "No commercial use of the image is allowed without expressed permission from the aforementioned author"). I'm pretty sure they need to be completely free, or else you need provide a 'non free rationale' (Wikipedia:Non-free content). I'm not sure such a rationale will float though, any one of us can easily create these coats of arms if we have a reliable blazon in front of us. I think maybe it isn't such a good idea to add content to a wikipedia article with the intent of receiving some sort of recognition within the article. Isn't that kinda a conflict of interest?--Breandán MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not up for deletion, the Roosevelt page is. I would not object to anyone creating a completely free image and thus replacing mine, but I still insist a surname page be created for Roosevelt. The images in the AHS source are from the 20th century, so are not themselves free images either. So, while there would be limited licensing on those black and white images, I provided a colour version in the same measure; I would think that an upgrade to a nonfree black and white. No, I do not release images for commercial use, but I do for any academic use. If I was truly trying to promote myself, I would release the images to be used by commercial interests, such as a printing company or news media, as attribution would still apply and such companies would be required to print my name whenever the image is used. At best, as I doubt coat of arms are even something highly researched on Wikipedia, my name will be known amongst 3rd grade students researching a biographical paper and perhaps think a coat of arms is cool enough to print off and attach at the end of their essay. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 09:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found that we do have a free Kennedy coat of arms, so i re-placed yours with that one. As far as i know, the only notable Roosevelt coat of arms is the one of the American family. That is already covered in an easily manageable sub-sections in Roosevelt Family, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt. Do we really need a another article to show it off? It doesn't seem like it. The family's coat of arms is covered in the family article. It seems that a 'surname' article with only one line devoted to the surname, and the rest devoted to the same arms and picture, is something like what is covered at WP:Coatrack. An article supposedly about one thing but really about displaying something else.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia is not meant to include only the most notable, otherwise there would be no need for an Robert Kennedy article because of John Kennedy, no World War I article because of World War II. There are many misconceptions about heraldry, and my efforts are to dispel them here in Wikipedia where I have the opportunity to. When people google "Smith coat of arms," they several companies giving false information in the hope of making a profit; often, these people get taken for upwards of $1000 because they are poorly informed. I have added coat of arms sections to famous people so that persons searching amongst Wikipedia will perhaps retain the idea that this wiki is a good place to search out heraldic information later. I have added heraldry information to surname articles, and would like to see other surname articles include or be created so as to include the same, so that people will be better informed about the whole system. Yes, I know that many people have no concern for it, and that those discussing it here may not view family histories and heraldry as important, but others do. That should be enough to include it. There is a very detailed article on the Smith name, and a very detailed one on heraldry, which should provide enough of a precedence to allow for a Roosevelt surname page and for it to include armorial displays. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 10:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a problem with adding info on the heraldry of notable people or families. That's something we should try to include and improve. I meant adding the exact same information in multiple articles. Like the Roosevelt stuff is the exact same thing in four articles (two one individuals, one on the family, and this one). Since the family and members of it seem to be the possessors of the only notable coats of arms, why not just merge this article with the family article? The surname Kennedy, i think, is a little different because there are several notable families (like the unrelated Irish and Scottish clans and the American family) which are known to use different heraldry. So it kind of makes sense to me that we could briefly cover the differences and that in a name article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous pages in Category:Polish coats of arms that are dedicated to a coat of arms alone, and usually have nothing more than an image and a few sentences. I am proposing a surname page that would include history and coat of arms and so forth. No, I did not come with much more than two coat of arms and an origin, but there are other surname pages (and those Polish heraldry articles) that exist freely with far less than what I have written; also, as Wikipedia is an add what you know and interests you, other information will come as it pleases people. The whole system is repetitive, and can not be helped. You have the individual’s page that then gets summarized for his family’s page which then links to the family branch’s page which links to the surname page which links to the disambiguation page; they all have the same information and simply become more generalized the further out they get. Those that have issue with a Roosevelt surname page being to small in scope to only have room to eventually include origin, migration, history and heraldry should first concern themselves with riding Wikipedia of the Luk coat of arms type articles. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:17, 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) 00:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. And notability of a supposed coat of arms is not inherited from U.S. presidents with similar names to "Van Roosevelt." Edison (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Roosevelt family. It already has a section on the coat of arms and the bit about the name could be useful there too. In any case, though, the information on the name currently in this article is misplaced, unless the article is renamed to Roosevelt (name). Powers ^T 15:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Before seeing this I posted a note suggesting moving new material in Theodore Roosevelt#Coat of Arms and Franklin D. Roosevelt#Coat of Arms into this article because the topic is too specialized for these biographies. I'd be fine with it going to a heraldry section in the Roosevelt family article instead. But folks here should be aware of the additional information in the bios. Will Beback talk 21:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. The article should be renamed Roosevelt (surname), in accordance with the other surname articles on Wikipedia and the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthroponymy. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:44, 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, Cunard (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roosevelt family per WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NetMovers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Uninformative article about company with little or no notability WuhWuzDat 19:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - while the FT article quoted is specifically about this company it doesn't do much to establish its significance. The Guardian article mentions the company in the first sentence, and once again at the end, but this article is clearly not about the company - it only mentions the company in passing. A gnews search didn't turn up an additional sources to help establish the required "significant" coverage. 7 02:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. Miami33139 (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is not spam, it is not being sent to anyone and no-one is being made to read it, people who search Wikipedia for information on this subject can find it. This article is informative and about a notable organisation. NetMovers is increasingly expanding and although they may feature in only two press articles, this could be down to the fact they don't heavily publicize everything they do. The concept of what NetMovers do is relatively new and becoming increasingly popular. Last year they won a UK Chamber of Commerce award and also had Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister at the time, visit the headquarters to congratulate the company on their success. See press releases on the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivorycoast1987 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) — Ivorycoast1987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Singularity42 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles because they were created by the same author at the same time, and are directly related to each other:

Singularity42 (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Rather than commenting here, the author has commented on all three talk pages. I have suggested that the editor contribute to the discussion here, but I'm not sure if that will be followed up on. I would suggest reviewing editors/adminstrators read those talk page comments as well so the author's position is known. Singularity42 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All three articles meet all criteria and can be verified by multiple sources.The individual/band and company can all be contacted (and have been).The authenticity of all three articles are NOT in question.

www.officialcollapse.com

www.forwardregression.com

www.myspace.com/officialcollapse

www.myspace.com/jasonjamesmackenzie

www.myspace.com/forwardregression

The artists material have been available since 2006 globally. The facts are not in question.The notice has been contested and will continue to be contested until all facts are verifted if necessary. Impaled666 (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Please state with examples what is missing from the articles.All facts are easily verifable and are obviously not in question. Many wiki pages regarding Artists/Companies/Individuals contain less information and these are easily verifable and all parties can be contacted.Impaled666 (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I cannot find any independent coverage of any of the articles listed. Everything seems to either be a promotional site or a social networking page. Rnb (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Wiki guidelines: "Wikipedia:Notability (people)" Basic criteria A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Entertainers Shortcuts: WP:ENT WP:ENTERTAINER Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: 1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.

The article for the individual meet the criteria laid out in the Wiki guidelines,as well as the criteria for the band and label since all are releated.The verifiability is not in question. Impaled666 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search Google collapse destroying by design Pages upon pages of enteries Impaled666 (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Metal archives Collapse entry: http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=42703 Impaled666 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search using Google and didn't find that any of the results met Wikipedia's policy for reliable sources. It looks like the Metal Archives page above allows anyone who registers to submit information and it doesn't seem particularly compelling for establishing notability. Rnb (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide what your definition of relabile sources are?The existence of the artist,band, company are not in question.Impaled666 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is questioning their existence, just their notability. As linked above, the guidelines for reliable sources are available here. Rnb (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on how well the band is known & how widespread it is on the internet for secondary sources,I would say they are notable.Impaled666 (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they're well known and notable, surely they have had magazine and newspaper articles written about them? Those would go a long way toward establishing notability, but I can't find any. Rnb (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Impaled should read WP:RS and WP:N in regards to our notability and reliable sourcing policies. This article does not meet our notability guidelines, and the sources provided (or any I could find) are not reliable sources from an independent third party. Angryapathy (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you all take a good look at the entire death metal music spectrum covered on wiki because many other artists listed meet less criteria and your open DISCRIMINNATION against our business will not go unnoticed going forward.Many artists are not covered on the internet,not all magazines are scanned into the internet.Even if the entry is deleted, we will have it relisted until it appears permenantly.The artist is not new however the company is,and does exist and you arguments are nothing less than hypocrisical and disriminatory. Impaled666 (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you continually re-add it, it will continually be deleted and you will be blocked indefinitely. It's not about discrimination. It's about WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia being an encyclopedia. Joe Chill (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated discussion about difference between PROD and AfD. Does not belong here.

Wiki guidelines state we are allowed to contest and delete the proposed deletion notice.If we get blocked,we will move up the appeal process at Wiki until it is rectified.Do not remove our contestion block,we are allowed to post that.Do not vandalize our enteries.We are also allowed to delete the deletion proposal notice but it was continually readded,if you keep breaking Wiki guidelines we will file a complaint against the users in question Impaled666 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets deleted, you have to take it to WP:DRV. Which all of the articles in this AfD most likely won't be restored. If they aren't and you recreate it repeatedly, they will all be speedy deleted and you will be blocked. Whatever you do won't help if you don't show how they pass the notability guideline. Joe Chill (talk)

STOP EDITING OUR PAGE WE ARE WORKING ON IT.WE ARE ALLOWED TO ADD THIS BLOCK:

This page was proposed for deletion by Singularity42 (talk · contribs) in the past.
It was contested by Impaled666 (talk · contribs)

Impaled666 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop owning articles. Also, this AFD will not be closed. You contested the prod, but AFD comes after prod. Joe Chill (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting do what you are stating.And you are removing part of the article that we are allowed to post.Impaled666 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove anything. Others did and they had good reasons for it. Reasons that you won't listen to. You just don't understand the rules. Joe Chill (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained on your talk page, a tag saying a proposed deletion was contested goes on the talk page. That has been done for all three articles. This is AfD, which is different from proposed deletion. To contest the deletion, you say on this page why you are contesting it (which you have done). After seven days, an administrator will review everyone's comments and determine what the consensus is. Singularity42 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, no evidence that the band/artist meet WP:BAND per WP:RS; including the article on the label, which also fails WP:CORP, this appears to be one large WP:COATRACK. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I can find no evidence of the band, company or person other than the 2 self-published website noted at the top of this discussion and the MySpace pages. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt liberally, as it seems that the author has promised to keep posting the article, trying to brute force it though. Sodam Yat (talk) 03:53, 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 speedy delete. Attack page or vandalism. Tikiwont (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Greaves[edit]

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

Nonsense biography with BLP problems - A7 was swatted away, so the article is being brought here. Warrah (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! - offensive material concerning an unaffiliated individual - please ban member, uses wikipedia for supposedly 'comedic' value at others expense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.21 (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - First of all, I love that the IP that added to the vanadlism on this page has voted to delete it. Seconly, the speedy was removed by this same IP. I've added the speedy back and watchlisted. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 19:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - could also qualify under G10 in its current state. noq (talk) 19:50, 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. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Systems Distributors[edit]

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

Article does not show notability. Appears to have been created by someone with a conflict of interest (user name is domain name of company website) who has removed coi issues tag without addressing the issue. noq (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable per WP:COMPANY, blatant WP:Conflict of interest by creator[16]. MuffledThud (talk) 13:08, 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. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew LeDrew[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet notability criteria. All his works are self published, Engen books being owned by him. - Gwen 18:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete Gwen is right, all of his books are self-published, and there is no secondary sources regarding him or his books. Angryapathy (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hairhorn is right, this should be a Speedy Delete per G4, as this was deleted previously, and nothing has changed with the article. Angryapathy (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, possible speedy as G4. Hairhorn (talk) 23:44, 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. All points considered. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura DiDio[edit]

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

This is a classic coatrack article. The real subject of this article isn't Laura DiDio, it's the SCO-Linux controversies. Hey! Look! We already have an article on that. Laura DiDio doesn't meet our notability guidelines because there are not reliable, third-party sources in which she is the subject of coverage. Incidentally, according to the talk page, this article was initially titled Didiot, and that remained a redirect until 2009. We shouldn't be covering, let alone repeating, non-notable nasty names from blogs and Slashdot. This article is a disgrace and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 18:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable person at the fringe of notable events/controversy. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 18:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, obvious WP:COATRACK indeed. JBsupreme (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lot of Open Source supporters would like to erase her existence. But this doesn't mean she isn't notable, and, if we're going to get rid of DiDio, perhaps PJ should go too? Put aside your bias, vote to keep based on notability. =//= Proxy User (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have redacted the vicious personal attacks made earlier by Proxy User. [17] Thank you for since refactoring. JBsupreme (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The above comment is a totally unnecessary personal attack that has no relevancy to this discussion at all. I understand you disagree with me, but how about keeping it "on topic"? Proxy User (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply. For the record, you originally wrote some seriously heinous shit that need not be repeated. These are your own words, and they are the only attacks made herein. The closing administrator should take note of this and weigh your !vote accordingly, perhaps you have an ulterior motive here. What you wrote is easily cause for a block should it ever continue. JBsupreme (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Are you suggesting the deciding Admin make a decision *not* based solely on the merits of the article? That's a dishonest position to take. I hope and expect that the Admin who takes on this issue will see that the article itself may need work but that the person is in fact notable, and the desire to delete the article is based solely on the nominator's dislike of the individual. That is, of course, not a valid reason to delete an article. Proxy User (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - The only unnecessary attack was the comment you made, PU. What you said was a serious violation of WP:BLP, and therefore, is strictly prohibited. Secondly, calling JB's edits vandalism is also not allowed, given your edit violated BLP, it was not vandalism to refactor it. You made a very wise choice refactoring it, otherwise you likely wouldn't be able to edit any other page but your talk.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - So in fact this page is not to discuss the merits of the article but rather to present a contrived façade that lets everyone feel that a fair decision was made? I think it’s pretty clear from the non-discussion going on here that many here are not really interested in fleshing out the merits / non-merits of the article, but rather pushing for a political decision to delete based not on the question of “is Didio notable” (she clearly is), but rather “we don’t like her, let’s expel her from Wikipedia”. BROVO! =//= Proxy User (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Notice - You are not allowed to guess at the motivations of others. Such is a personal attack, cease and desist.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - Oh good grief! You're joking. That's quite asinine. Please be specific when you cite exactly where at Wikipedia such a rule is codified? If you take it as a personal attack, that's your thin skin, but I'll be surprised if such a thing is more than a gross misinterpretation of something completely different. Please stay ON TOPIC and discuss the AfD. Because it seems that you are more interested in shouting me down than discussing the actual subject of this page, as I have. Now, Lora Didio is quite disliked for good reasons, but she played a big part in the SCO business, and any discussion of SCO is simply incomplete without mention of Didio. =//= Proxy User (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply - I am staying on topic. While this page is about the AFD, this subthread was about your gross violation of BLP. As per the policy cite request, WP:NPA. I am not joking, you are not allowed to guess at another user's motives. It is an accusation, and therefore a personal attack. You can't handle wikipedia policy? The door is over there. A user's skin thickness is irrelevant, you don't like policy, you can leave, but you are not allowed to accuse others without evidence. Lastly, you're the only one shouting with your bold and caps.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 09:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment OK, enough with this subthread. The BLP issues have been raised at ANI. Any closing admin reading through this will know to check through the history of this article and the ANI thread, and will take them into account however they view it. There's nothing more to be added to this. Thanks. Ged UK 09:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply - What are you talking about? This issue was not raised at ANI. If you are referring to the 'burden' topic, that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, but an entirely different matter.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Guidelines for AFD commentary, it's the only reason I came to this AfD. Ged UK 08:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh. Thank you for the link. Well, I'm done. Goodnight(even though it is technically morning).— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 11:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the article reads more as a Mesian version of another article. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 08:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. JBsupreme (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - get your coat love, you've pulled. Giant Snowman 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JB and Jeremy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, JB, and Jeremy.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since I was once a regular Groklaw reader she is well known to me, but even there I couldn't find the kind of discussion of her that would be enough if Groklaw wasn't a blog (which it is, although a notable one). There may be some information out there on the web, hard to find since searches for her name bring up myriads of articles written by her. But it appears not to be the case. Therefore, until someone proves otherwise: very well known, but not technically notable. Hans Adler 01:02, 19 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) 02:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Herr[edit]

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

He exists, there are a couple minor sources, but he doesn't meet the notability of a baseball player, as he did not make the major leagues, play in any of the major Asian leagues, or play internationally. Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See WP:WPBB/N, I think he fits well into that last bullet. I think it's borderline, but there seems to be sufficient second party sources. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only reason he has an article is because he is Tom Herrs son, hes not notable otherwise.--Yankees10 00:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has significant time in AAA, which meets my requirements for inclusion. Enough sources about this player to satisfy notability requirements. Spanneraol (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, since when does playing in AAA make a player notable?--Yankees10 01:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always considered players with more than one season at AAA to be notable... it used to be our policy but it was changed. It remains my opinion. Spanneraol (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess since WP:ATHLETE...he is a "professional" is he not? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And he isn't just a AAA player, but a AAA All-Star. Spanneraol (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every single player in A ball are professional too, so Brian what you are saying is they are notable too. I dont think so.--Yankees10 01:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, WP:ATHLETE is. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are clearly mistaken. Not every player in A ball are notable.--Yankees10 16:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not, WP:ATHLETE is. I'm following its guidelines, because that is consensus. I don't think we should be pushing what we feel is notability. If you have a problem, you should take it up on the talk page. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. International League All-Star at AAA in 2007. Also meets the general notability guideline: Interview in the Springfield News-Leader, full profiles in the Lancaster New Era, Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, Niagra Gazette, a partial profile in the Myrtle Beach Sun News, etc. More as well, if needed, but that should be plenty, IMO. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:34, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently meets the GNG; sometimes famous names generate the level of coverage satisfying notability when others without family connections are ignored. Sometimes notability's just not fair. Paris Hilton. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and incorporate the stories Juliancolton dug up, maybe delete some of the many stat links in the article. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 18:50, 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. Sandstein 07:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isochronia[edit]

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

There is no such political system as the one described in this article. The word itself does not have a political definition. Either WP:MADEUP or WP:NEO would fit. Warrah (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC

Delete — Rather far-fetched. There is another article about Isocracy but it is only superficially related. Web search comes up with a medical condition of this name, but nothing political. Favonian (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep .What do you mean, "there is no such political system". There are many other political systems mentioned (like anarchy, or many democratic variables) that do not exist in real life. Isochronia is one of the many possible political systems. This is how we called it in our school, I really wonder if there also another term used to describe the same system.. Of course it is also a medical term, this should be mentioned as disambiguation. Isocracy is not the same as Isochronia.Isochronia (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anarchy has copious references documenting its notability; this article doesn't, and we haven't been able to locate any. And while we are at it: how come your user name is the same as that of the article? Just curious. Favonian (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you think the problem with Isochronia article is my nickname, the let me changed it, I don't mind. This is how we called this political system in my shcool, as far as I remember. The issue here is not to delete this possible political system, the issue is if there is another term describing this very political system, that is more appropriate. So this article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, but not deletion. Isochronia (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put an Unreferenced tag, hoping a political science expert to arrive, and inform us if there is another more scholar term that is used to describe Isochronia in english. Isochronia (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. I can't find any reliable sources that demonstrate any use of this term defined as it is here, and thus it becomes original research. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is not original research. I used the term used in my school, but it is possible that there is another term more appropriate Isochronia (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above I cannot find any references to the term in this context. Seems to be dictionary definitions of the medical term. noq (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google is not a reliable source, please dont use goggling in order to justify you view. I am sure my teacher could give you the references, but it is along time I left school and I dont remember them. Isochronia (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you claim is correct, then why you want to delete isochronia? In worst case it is a medical term, so the article must change in order to describe the term. Isochronia (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why are you trying to keep its current usage? You have failed to provide any references other than some vague 'I heard it in school' comment - see WP:V and WP:RS. You have already created a page for the medical term which may or may not survive - it is only a one line definition that would be better in wiktionary. noq (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: I am not trying to keep its current usage. But this is how I remember this system were called. I created the article to get the attention of a political science expert, in order for him to confirm my claim or alternatively tell us which is the scholar term used. That is why I insist for this article to be kept, because I really want to discover if this is actually the correct scholar term, or not. Isochronia (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:VERIFY: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You can't create an article to find out whether what you're saying is correct or not, you're supposed to do that before you write the article. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I AM NOT SAYING THAT I AM NOT CORRECT. I am saying that I don't remember the reliable sources. This is not the same. Isochronia is not the only article in wikipedia that survives without having reliable sources mentioned. Similar to other articles, the policy is to wait until the reliable sources are discovered, or wait for an expert to arrive and confirm or reject the claim. You are not an expert are you? Isochronia (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now, this is where you are wrong. Have a look at WP:PROVEIT. Favonian (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment::: You have so many unreferenced articles. If you think isochronia must be deleted, then why not for all these articles also? Isochronia (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: You don't seem to understand WP:OTHERSTUFF. This policy talks about pointing out an article on a similar subject that may exist or not, as an argument of deleting or keeping. My argument is not about a similar article that exists or not, which is the case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. I am talking about the lack of reliable source which is a common practice in many articles. Isochronia (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The lack of reliable sources is not a deletion criterion. Isochronia (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Lack of reliable sources to establish notability is probably the most common reason for articles being deleted. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Now you changed your argument again, accusing me that I want to establish notability. As I said before, if my nickname is the problem, I will changed it immediately. In your case, accusing me that I want notability, is considered as bad faith, and this is also against wikipedia policy. Isochronia (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Cassandra means notability of the subject of the article, documented by sources. No evidence, no article. Favonian (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what it concerns notability , the article is surely notable for political science, which investigates all possible forms of government, including of course isochronia. Isochronia (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The lack of reliable sources is not a deletion criterion, is it? Isochronia (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. It really is the only deletion criterion. Abductive (reasoning) 21:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PROVEIT: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Cassandra 73 (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is generally correct, but you know that for as many as more than 20000 articles in wikipedia, we are giving them the time for the reliable sources to be discovered, and we dont delete them immediately. Isochronia (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the usual reasons for deletion:WP:DEL#REASON. Lack of notability figures prominently, if not exclusively. Favonian (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what it concerns notability , the article is surely notable for political science, which investigates all possible forms of government, including of course isochronia. Isochronia (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No sources means no notability implies deletion. Favonian (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is generally correct, but for more than 20000 articles in wikipedia, we are giving them the time for the reliable sources to be discovered, and we dont delete them immediately Isochronia (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between an article being unreferenced and an article with no sources to be found. If you look up Achilles, you will find plenty of sources all over the place. The problem with that article is that editors have not yet applied those sources to the information in the article. But sources can easily be found. If not even the editors can find a source for the topic, it should be deleted. 136.181.195.10 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Achilles is not unreferenced. Achilles#Other_stories_about_Achilles is. And this unreferenced section stands since 2006! Of course you can find not only unreferenced sections, but also unreferenced whole articles, like Actium which is unreferenced since 2001, and none ever nominated it for deletion. Isochronia (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just found a reference for Actium [18]. If someone had nominated it for deletion, someone else would probably have found this and others by checking the google links on the AFD which would have let to a keep outcome. Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know that Actium exists, actually I live nearby Actium. But it was unreferenced since 2001, until you discovered a reliable source about it. Why not giving the same time grace to isochronia? I can point many unreferenced articles having reliable sources very difficult to be discovered by non experts (like us). But they still exist as articles. Why not giving the same grace to isochronia? If you ask my personal opinion, isochronia term is as reliable as Actium is.Isochronia (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "grace", it just passed unnoticed for a long time and given how easily I found sources I doubt if anyone else tried in that time. There probably are other articles which don't have sources, but sources probably could be found if someone looked which would prevent the article actually being deleted if it ever got to AFD. The point here is that we've looked for sources for this article and can't find any. Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, but I still believe that we have to wait for a PoliSci expert to arrive and express her/his opinion about isochronia. You are not expert in PoliSci, so please dont express so easily your opinion about everything, especially in deletion issues. Isochronia (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't, there's no policy that says deletions have to be assessed by an expert in the subject. Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP is a general encyclopedia, not one of PoliSci, so not every topic useful for a field is notable here. Nor are we meant to list everything new. Impossible to verify as a political term, this is in fact a term used in medicine. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument sound reasonable. But I am asking grace for isochronia (similar to the grace you are showing for so many other articles) in order for me to search and discover reliable sources. Or alternatively me or some PoliSci expert discover the alternative PoliSci scholar term that is used for that type of government. Isochronia (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the "grace we are showing for so many other articles"; someone took the time and trouble to submit this for an articles for deletion process, rather than simply asking for its speedy deletion. That means that you have about six more days to "search and discover reliable sources" and add them to the article; that's the grace period that this process is designed to offer, and it is the maximum amount that can be had. Rather than try to change Wikipedia policy single-handed and based on six hours' experience with how things work around here, why not use your time to find references and provide them? Nothing else is likely to change anyone's mind, and providing reliable sources certainly will. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place to promote your theories. Edward321 (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why is this not deleted yet? Near as I can tell, it should have been speedied. No such thing. Newt ^(winkle) 20:16, 20 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 by User:Anthony.bradbury per WP:CSD#G1: Patent nonsense and WP:CSD#G3: Blatant hoax. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stoogecat[edit]

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

Non-notable (and possibly non-existent) slang expression. WP:NEO problems. Warrah (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an unsourced neologism. I HATE these things. There should be CSD criteria for these and other WP:MADEUP-violating pages. But there's not, so we have to go the long way. And by PROD or by AFD, either way the article gets to stay up for an entire week. A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 18:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I would almost file this under WP:CSD#G3 - it's a pretty blatant hoax/vandalism. I guess kudos to Warrah for AGF. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 18:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be bold and put a CSD tag over the AfD tag. This looks pretty blatant to me, especially considering the user's history and the last paragraph of the article. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 18:29, 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 closed as duplicate discussion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th Century Masters-The Millennium Collection: The Best of Grace Jones. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colour Collection (Grace Jones)[edit]

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

Delete/Merge: Since this was the second compilation with the identical track listing, a mention of this 2006 release could be added to the article for The Universal Masters Collection (Grace Jones album). Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 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 closed as duplicate discussion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th Century Masters-The Millennium Collection: The Best of Grace Jones. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Island Life 2[edit]

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

Delete/Merge: The information in this PROD page should be made into a special section of the article for the original Island Life. In fact, a listing of the four bonus tracks is already there. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 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 closed as duplicate discussion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th Century Masters-The Millennium Collection: The Best of Grace Jones. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Grace Jones Story[edit]

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

Keep - Despite the ridiculous record company duplication, this is a possibly notable standalone release. Notable artist, major label release, informative article (though it needs sources). The information in this article should not be lost. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 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 closed as duplicate discussion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th Century Masters-The Millennium Collection: The Best of Grace Jones. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Collection (Grace Jones album)[edit]

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

Keep - Despite the ridiculous record company duplication, this is a possibly notable standalone release. Notable artist, major label release, informative article (though it needs sources). The information in this article should not be lost. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 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 closed as duplicate discussion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th Century Masters-The Millennium Collection: The Best of Grace Jones. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Universal Masters Collection (Grace Jones album)[edit]

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

Keep/Merge: Since there are duplicate Grace Jones compilations I can see the rationale for deleting some of them, but not all of them. This one was later duplicated, so I suggest Keep for this article, and the information for the identical subsequent compilation Colour Collection (Grace Jones) should be merged into this article. They are possibly notable releases for a certainly notable artist, but the record company duplication is pretty ridiculous. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Sneck[edit]

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

Placed article for discussion after PROD tag was removed without reason given. After some research into this and similar articles, I've been unable to find any apparent reliable third-party sources to use as references. There are no citations used in the article to suggest or affirm notability, and no Wikipedia articles extended from here appear to grant notability by legacy. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article only links to others within Wikipedia that seem to be of the same very narrow subject and scope, and give the appearance of a self-referencing group of bombardment articles maintained by the same limited number of editors. I decided to put a few articles up for discussion versus jumping to conclusions and trying to make a wider report. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP —Marco Sneck is a musician who have been contributed to albums of bands like sentenced, play as the keyboard player of poisonblack, kalmah and most recently nothnegal. and according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles he is a notable musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mv head (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:04, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:26, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antidote of Realism EP[edit]

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

Placed article for discussion after PROD tag was removed without reason given. After some research into this and similar articles, I've been unable to find any apparent reliable third-party sources to use as references. There are no citations used in the article to suggest or affirm notability, and no Wikipedia articles extended or linking in appear to grant notability by legacy. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article only links to others within Wikipedia that seem to be of the same very narrow subject and scope, and give the appearance of a self-referencing group of bombardment articles maintained by the same limited number of editors. I decided to put a few articles up for discussion versus jumping to conclusions and trying to make a wider report. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This record was produced by a noted producer, features noted musicians and have been on the news of major media like blabbermouth.net which is enough for it to be noted and have also received reviews worldwide. i support to keep this article. The EP have been mentioned twice on news articles by blabbermouth.net as you can see here: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/Blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=antidote+of+realism&x=53&y=7

and if you google for the title, several results show up linking it to different media websites. --Ntxdr (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: this album have received significant coverage and includes well known musicians and produced by a known producer so it must be kept.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!: i vote to keep this article. this is the first record of a noted band and it should be noted. it also features other noted musicians and is produced and mixed by a noted producer. it have also received reviews and several hits on download websites which shows that its got a huge following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.195.215.26 (talk) 09:53, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Nothnegal the band is of questionable notability. There isn't even an entry for them on allmusic. Abductive (reasoning) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EPs do not inherit notability from the band, which is already questionable. Fails WP:NALBUM from what I can see. Significant coverage in third party sources is required here. Rehevkor ✉ 20:27, 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. There is an overwhelming consensus to delete albeit there have been improvements towards the end of tje discussion period. I considered whether this would have markedly changed the views of the editors who commented before these changes but did not see significant evidence of a change of direction in the discussion to permit me to consider discarding earlier delete votes or relisting this Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation

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

This article has 2 very major flaws:

Firstly article is blatant case of WP:SYNTH. It provides no reliable source which would combine together all included battles and explain their common macrohistorical importance. Europe is defined randomly: Hunnic Empire was practically fully in Europe, Carthage had notable territories in Europe and Hasdrubal's army came from Spain, Ottoman Empire had large territories and its capital in Europe. Should we include any battles against Russian Empire/USSR, Grand Dutchy of Lithuania, early Hungarians, or Vikings too? What about Normandy landings? Etc.
Secondly article has serious WP:NPOV problems. "...foreign forces from various parts of Asia and Africa threatened the existence of European settlements by invasion...", and obviously 5 battles are Muslims vs Christians, not to mention that all battles are "European" victories.

At previous AfD in 2007 one of the main "keep" arguments was also to give people time to fix article. Now there have been no edits in last month, and no notable changes in content in last 14 months. Staberinde (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, for some reason previous AfD isn't listed under "AfDs for this article:".

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.
Wow, that last debate was tl;dr. Delete. The premise of the article is that "there were eight distinct conflicts that greatly affected the history of Europe, ranging from the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC to the Battle of Vienna in 1683." Oh, really? Absent any sources that describe these battles in this way, this article is improper synthesis. Fences&Windows 23:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. It also pointlessly gives descriptions of each of the battles; pointless because we have dedicated articles on these battles. Reduce it to the (unsourced) lead and deletion is pretty obvious. Fences&Windows 23:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In Thermopylae: the battle for the West (1979, 2004), Ernle Bradford discusses the battle in the context of occuring "during the years in which the fate of Europe was decided." (pg. 54). Here an author of another book asserts that "Bloody battles that decided the fate of Europe were fought on the Danube's banks. Twice the Occident withstood the onslaught of the Turks at Vienna (1529, 1683)..." Checking Google Books reveals such reference for pretty much all of these battles. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please put your decision in the beginning as I did so I can tell easily :P I tried to improve the article's sourcing a long time ago for GA status, but the concerns over synthesis are totally valid in my mind. I have been unable to find any sources that tie these battles together. I must support this AfD fully based upon the reasoning above- I sincerely doubt these battles will lose any importance or status if the article is deleted. As much as it pains me to see a history article go, it must. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 02:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete Synthesis and not a valid subject for an encyclopedia, as it reeks of Original Research - there are so many battles that haven't been included for whatever reason, and most importantly there are no Reliable Sources actually talking about the subject as a whole; there might be a source calling one battle important, but none including them all and academically debating the subject. Skinny87 (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Straightforward synthesis--The article may have been inspired by one of the references used, the classic work, Edward Shepherd Creasy, The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World: From Marathon to Waterloo. London: Richard Bentley, &c 1851. and dozens of later editions. [19] . Unfortunately, it has it at 15. The number is obviously a matter of opinion and basically just a hook to write a book around. The Creasey, however, might be worth an article. DGG ( talk ) 11:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I have struck my comment as no longer applicable to the present state of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Creasy's book already has an article The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World. ;) --Staberinde (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all text and substitute a list. All the important battles will have their own articles, so that a list would be as much as we need. Which battles were the most decisive is inevitably a matter of WP:POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::The list wouid not be under this title, for there is no particular reason to limit it to eight. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I have struck my comment as no longer applicable to the present state of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC) :::On reflection, Delete entirely -- WP works best when there is one article on one subject. The selection of battles is inevitably a POV issue. Creasy's 15 battles, or any one else's list would provide the basis for a useful category, but a synthesis, such as this is not useful. If there were common features to several battles, an article drawing out those similarities might have been useful, but I very much doubt there are any, except their perceived importance. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. there is no reference given for the text of the lead, so there is no source stating these 8 are key. this pains me, the material here is serious research, and well intentioned, but of course it just doesnt belong here. to creator(s): write a book. I could see a list of battles between european and non european forces, which, by the way, would probably have to include some allied battles in ww2 where the US was involved. not sure why we would want such a list, but if someone wants to try to create it, fine. but its gonna be more than this 8.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Well, the subject itself can be encyclopedic. I've seen very good descriptions of the importance of the Battle of Thermopylae and the Battle of Tours; and somehow, authors like Creasy were secure enough that they saw no need to use words like "macrohistorical". However, this article shot itself in the foot from the beginning by using a grandiose title and writing in jargon, and actually got worse. The original opening sentence explained the criteria for inclusion, a smarter-than-thou explanation, but still an explanation -- but it got removed along the way: "This is a list of battles which at least two historians have written were of macrohistorical importance between European nation-states—or European polities recognized by historians as independent nation-states—and invading outside forces," which at least is a definition. As with sarcasm, most people should not attempt sophistication-- because most people are no damn good at it. Mandsford (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, I take offense at "most people should not attempt sophistication-- because most people are no damn good at it." LOL Not really, but it would help to have improvement in prose, but just not in THIS kind of an article, where it seems like a massive sales pitch in the lead. I'll overlook your 'keep' this time... :D Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; pretty clearly synthesis and redundant to the articles on the battles. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No !vote, but a request. If the decision at the end of this is to delete, then please could the closing admin userfy this article to me. There is a great deal of sourced content here, and I would like to consider the possibility of merging reliably-sourced material to relevant other articles.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, I have been working on something similar at User:A Nobody/List of decisive battles for which this article could be merged with, i.e. an article on the concept of the "decisive battle", which is indeed something multiple historians have written about and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE, we could definitely use some of the citations in this article's edit history for such an article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, there might be references worth using, userfying is a good idea. Interesting list, A Nobody. A list is much better than a repetition of material about the battles in question, so long as it can be well-defined. You've probably already seen Decisive Battles? The term "decisive battle" is bandied around a lot in the press, especially at the time of the conflict, so the sources would need to say why it is a decisive battle rather than just saying it is. Fences&Windows 15:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure synthesis, weirdly skewed and not a topic that exists anywhere in academia.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is actually not true per Eds. Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome, and John McBrewster, Battles of Macrohistorical Importance Involving Invasions of Europe: Battles of Macrohistorical Importance Involving Invasions of Europe. Battle of Thermopylae, Battle of Vienna, Battle of the Metaurus, Battle of the Catalaunian Plains (Alphascript Publishing, 2009). 120 pages. The book can be purhcased from Amazon.com even. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That a book exists with this precise wording, that some individual has their own thesis about the most "macrohistorical battles" does not make it a topic. Perhaps an article on that book might be acceptable (if it's notable and so on) -- that would at least limit the scope for the junior historians amongst us to litter what masquerades as an encyclopedia article with their own synthesis and views.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remaking this article to be about the book instead is a reasonable alternative to me. I wonder, to be honest, if the authors who the book also first wrote this article as the more I look, the article seems almost as a summary of the book? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse. According to User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript Publishing sells free articles as expensive books, these "authors" just republish Wikipedia articles as books. This is actually freely admitted by the company itself: [20]. Using this as a validation for this article is obviously circular reasoning, and the book should not be used as justification for or as source in the article. The book laso probably doesn't deserve a separate article, unless it passes WP:N. Fram (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll order the book. At 120 pages, it has to be more than just this article and so I want to see how similar and how much more extensive it is. It was published on October 10th, 2009 so reviews may not be in. I do, nevertheless, still believe that some of the references in this article could be of potential value to an article on "decisive battles" or even to the individual battle articles covered here. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the misfortune to encounter these books before, Nobody. They're put together by a bot, I think, slamming together baguely related content and then it gets published in a poorly bound book. They're in no way reliable, just literal reprints of wikipedia articles - the one I saw had citationneeded tags still scattered about. Skinny87 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good lord. I just assumed it was a publisher i'd never heard of. Turns out, it's not any kind of reliable publisher at all. Lets not have a meta discursive article on a book whose title was generated by a bot that crawled wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIRCULAR applies. The book was copied from Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 15:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a complete ripoff! I already noticed it and did the research on the company- they do sell Wikipedia texts as books. SHAME! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 00:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, wikipedia articles sold as books? I was also unaware of such thing, but I truly feel sorry for anyone who actually pays real money for such crap. Not to mention that calling such things "books" feels like insulting any proper publishers. Btw, gotta love how same "authors" publish on topics varying from Croatian Wines to Nuclear Power, and from Assyrian people to Ion Antonescu[21].--Staberinde (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that book can't be used as a reference, but we should remember that our license and mission practically begs people to do what alphascript is doing. They are outright misrepresenting the content and the authorship, but the actual binding and publishing of WP articles for profit isn't bad in itself. Protonk (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this were a list, it would be remiss in not including the Battle of the Bulge where invading American armies saved the entire world from evil, and thus someone would say it's a list that could never have well defined criteria. It's not a list, though, and obvious omissions make it clear that it's just a case of SYNTH. As a further demonstration of googling for sources does not equal notability, the book is a mirror - not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

This article provides an overview of those battles whose outcome has been judged by at least two modern historians to be of lasting cultural or political importance for European nation-states—or European polities recognized by historians as independent nation-states—and invading outside forces.

”

World War 2 had a white Christian nation invading them, so it doesn't count. Only listing those invasions from outside the European continent, seems rather odd. Were there not just as many major conflicts between the eight conflicts, which were between European states? You could just have an article called List of invasions of Europe from elsewhere which significantly changed history then. Or just one for major conflicts that shaped Western civilization, or significantly changed the world. Is all the information already listed in the various battle articles linked? All the battle articles could have an aftermath section, and quote various historians there. Dream Focus 17:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question - do you read the things you quote? "It does not include the battles where both opposing factions were European, but may contain battles where both opposing forces belonged to a similar culture." Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone above mentioned the religion of those involved. That was mostly a joke, about them not being white Christians. And I see no reason to just list those battles from non-Europeans though, as I have stated. Dream Focus 17:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a personal essay based on a dubious hypothesis that "foreign forces from various parts of Asia and Africa threatened the existence of European settlements by invasion". I concur this is a terrible example of synthesis. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Massively notable topic on a theme addressed by at least hundreds , probably tens of thousands of sources. There's no more danger of synth here than there is with our article on heterodox economics in the absence of universal agreement on which branches are covered by that umbrella term, or with our article on sexual positions where no single source is used to decide which of the hundreds of variations to include. We're actually better set with this article in that as described in the lede we only talk about the battles that at least two historians agree have macrohistoric significance.

Here's an extract from Worlds at War: The 2,500-year struggle between East and West by distinguished professor Anthony Pagden and published by Oxford University Press. ( this source now added to the article)

"to later generations it seemed obvious that Poitiers represented a moment in the history of the West in which the whole of Europe had been saved from the forces of barbarism which were forever poised to engulf her" -- here we have the concept of macrohistorical importance in all its overwhelming significance.

"in the subsequent western historiography ... the battle of Poitiers {i.e. Tours} was represented as another Marathon.*" -- here we have analyses on different macrohistorical battles. Secondary sources dont come any better than Oxford University Press!

(Marathon and not Thermopilae is actually the key battle from the Persian War "the battle of Marathon, even as an event in English history, is more important than the battle of hastings" - John Stuart Mill "{at Marathon} the interest of the whole worlds history hung trembling in the balance" Hegel )

Granted the OUP source is about the ideological struggle as well as battles of macrohistorical importance. As an example of a source concentrating on battles there's History's Greatest Battles by Nigel Cawthorn where the first line on the dust jacket is "Great Battles mark historys turning points" or the best selling Carnage and Culture. There are at least several hundred more where these came from!

There are a few issues before we can restore the article's GA status. Theres no universal agreement on which battles to include and certainly not on there being exactly 8. The lede has been altered to reflect this. Definetly we should include Marathon and the successful invasion of Constantinople. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is WP:Synthesis, and rather old-fashioned. I understand the urge to point out which battles had as their potential outcome the conquest of Europe by the Satrap or the Turk or the Hun or the Mongol. But the place for pointing out that these battles were important is the articles themselves. One could even put a comment in an article that "Europe had not been so threatened since..." since I am sure sources say this. Abductive (reasoning) 22:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep in some capacity per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE as at worst the article undeniably has cited material that can be merged to articles on the individual battles or a new article on "decisive battles". One might also say to keep per WP:IAR as the article is just plain interesting and these sorts of fun and interesting articles are big reason why so many people come to Wikipedia in the first place. Moreover, the idea that encyclopedias do not include essays is bunk. Look at any of the book of the year updates for Britannica to see many thesis-driven essays based on so-called primary sources. Finally, the article serves a navigational function akin to a table of contents by listing these battles and providing readers with quick links to their respective articles. And as a list the article is clearly discriminate: only battles, only battles of macrohistoircal importance, only battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions, and only battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe. There is therefore absolutely zero pressing need to redlink this article, whereas by contrast we could unquestionably salvage some of its contents for use elsewhere and we never delete when that is the case per WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even ignoring the fact that it is not a list and the included and excluded battles are very debatable (How can one invade Europe from out of Spain and Portugal?), the whole concept is very dubious. Why is invasion of Europe somehow a separate concept? A battle involving the Eastern Roman Empire only gets included when it is close to Europe, not when it is in Near Asia? Half of Russia is in Asia, so is it an invasion when they occupy the Baltic States or not? If not, then why are the Huns included? There isn't that much geographical difference between the Hunnic Empire and the USSR. Why are only invasions from outside Europe included? The Sack of Rome was equally decisive for the future of Europe, but didn't include people from outside Europe. So? The Romans weren't focused on Europe, but on the Mediterranean, and the division between inside-outside Europe was not important in their days. When you don't keep the contents and don't keep the title, delete. Fram (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article contains Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe#References that absolutely can be used elsewhere, which is why we will keep this article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - We'll keep an article because the references may be used elsewhere? That's a fairly novel interpretation... If this is the only purpose left and people feel the need to keep this list of references, the article can be moved without a redirect to a subpage of the milhist project. Fram (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If we are indeed here to build a reference guide not for ourselves, but for our readers then we will indeed keep this article's edit history because the references are useful and relevant to those readers. I have actually linked to this article in my course webpages as it is a fun one for students to consider some of the big invasions of Europe and whether or not these battles are indeed as important as the article suggest. Put simply, from personal experience this particular article has great value in an educational setting, which is after all the whole point of an encyclopedia anyway. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "I have actually linked to this article in my course webpages" Omg, WP:COI :P Anyway all those good references belong to articles about individual battles, and if some of them are still not in those individual articles, then they should be simply moved before erasing this. There is no need to keep this one purely for reference storage. And you may give your students simply list of those 8 battles and suggest them to check out separate articles, only thing that they would miss would be crappy lead that this article has ;) --Staberinde (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It is far more convenient and logical to have a ready made list here than having to essentially recreate the same list elsewhere. If the content's of any article have any value or possible value to other articles or to our readers and are neither hoaxes, libelous, nor copy vios, we keep their content per WP:PRESERVE and redirect somewhere per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, selection criteria are not logical, even for a list. A list of the major battles in the history of Europe may be feasible, but the idea to take only those battles involving "invasions of Europe" is highly POV and selective. It doesn't matter whether the battles involve countries or tribes from within one continent or from different continents, both can equally shape the future. Fram (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a call to redirect to List of battles at worst. There is no reason/need to redlink. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, we don't redirect such extremely unlikely search terms. There is no reason not to redlink. 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    - Given all the editors who worked on the article and who are arguing to keep it, it is a pretty obvious search term and again, no reason whatsoever why we must protect the public from having a redirect at worst. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That begs the question as to how the users in this AFD found it. Allow me to posit that it's possible they were not searching for this article, rather they are imports from WP:ARS. Hipocrite (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        How did you find it? I did a search a while back of something like "battles involving invasions of Europe" and had it watchlisted ever since. It gets a couple thousand hits a month (I am going with October rather than November as the month of the AfD could be prejudicial in my favor, i.e. with more views as people debate during an AFD and I want to be fair rather than inflate things to help my stance), incidentally a year ago in October, it had a few thousand hits even. Somehow or other people are finding it. I do not know how to check what articles link to this one, so we have to figure people are finding it by some kind of search of something like "European invasion battles," which even then, perhaps this could still be merged/redirected to something like List of invasions of Europe. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "pretty obvious search term" Erm, lets be serious, practically nobody uses such search term. People who have found this article before AfD on their own, have most likely came from one of the links to it that are in "see also" sections of articles about individual battles, as far as I can remember I found it originally long ago same way as this article's unorthodox title catches attention. Also article hasn't got much work recently, as I said then nominating this: at time of AfD's beginning no edits had been made for a month and no notable changes in content for 14 months. AfD's participation is probably also boosted because I listed it in Military and History related discussions as I was actually pretty worried about getting no proper participation here otherwise.--Staberinde (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Which articles link to this one? As for as your second comment above, see Wikipedia:NOEFFORT. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh, I mentioned lack of edits are direct reply to this: "Given all the editors who worked on the article...". If you claim large number of editors working on article, and I then make counterargument that there actually hasn't been so much working on article, its not particularly nice to reply with link to essay which claims that actually amount of previous work isn't relevant anyway. Now about articles linking this, in toolbox there is this nice thing "what links here", ignoring various userpages, redirects, and other crap, we can still find there: List of battles, Battle of Tours, Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, Battle of Lepanto (1571), Battle of the Metaurus, Battle of Toulouse (721), Culture of Europe, Battle of Vienna, Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–1573).--Staberinde (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        According to this, multiple accounts and IPs have worked on this article since 2007. Given that S. Marshall asked above for this article to be userfied, it is inconsiderate to our colleague to say to delete rather to say to userfy at worst. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't have any objections for userfying it, if someone wants it then its totally okay for me, and I don't see any reason why such request would or should be denied.--Staberinde (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It seems people are arguing over the title not the content. The battles are significant and well referenced. It seems that the "macrohistorical importance" is what is subjective. What is wrong with an article on Invasions of Europe by foreign powers? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not the title, it's the fact that it's a completely unreferenced synthesis (and mishmash of content forks littered with subjective claims).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Richard Authur Norton makes a good case. The name perhaps could be changed. A well referenced article listing the major invasions the European continent has had, from those outside it, makes sense. Wouldn't both World Wars count though? The German empire had conquered much of Europe, and only an invasion from the distant continent of North America was able to change that, significantly affecting Europe. Dream Focus 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the article is focusing on invasions where the invading power is there for conquest, not as allies. That can be explained in the first paragraph. Again there is no reason to not have an article on Invasions of Europe by foreign powers, it isn't covered in another article. All the other objections, are on editing, and can be discussed on the talk page. AFD is for discussing whether the topic is encyclopedic. Content is discussed on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, are the Huns a "foreign power"? Or are they as European as Russia? Was Al-Andalus a foreign power invading Europe? How long does one have to live in Europe before one becomes European? Why is one empire with Constantinopel as its capital considered as a European empire threatened by invasion, and another Empire with Constantinople as its capital a foreign power invading Europe? This article is filled with a 19th century based romantic view of the Christian, superior Europe defending itself against the barbarian unbelieving hordes from the South and the East. Not the kind of POV that should support a current article. Fram (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is bizarre that this article, which cites so many famous historians, should be under assault so that a comparatively flimsy article like Decisive Battles can hold the field. It seems ridiculous WP:RECENTISM to prefer a series on the History Channel to historians like Delbruck and Oman. There is, of course, much scope for improvement but this material is much too weighty and substantial to be casually deleted. Our editing policy requires that we keep this good material and make something of it. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious original research and synthesis. We already have articles about the battles; the attempt to combine a particular number of them into an article of this sort cannot be justified, no matter how hard the ARS tries. Deor (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is unoriginal research as the references are overwhelming secondary sources and a discriminate list in the manner of a table of contents or gateway to other articles cannot justifiably be called a synthesis. Despite two nominations, there is still no compelling reason to redlink rather than redirct, merge, userfy, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be synthesis and tenuous relationship between elements. Largely per nom. Protonk (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article that no more synsthizes these battles concerning only invasions of Europe with importance beyond the conflict between the two combatants than an article listing tall buildings synthesizes those buildings has twice been upheld as a Good Article (see "Milestones" at Talk:Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe) and has also been transwikied to wikia:list:Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe and again, so it is not lost in the mix, a user (not me, but S. Marshall) has requested the article at worst be userfied for him. It is extremely discourteous to say to this established editor "delete" rather than at least userfy. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as I've argued on the talkpage, this article is a very clear and serious case of WP:SYN. To quote my comment there: 'If it is to exist at all, then the sources should make it clear that these eight battles, in particular, are widely considered by historians to be of great significance, and are generally associated with each other and studied alongside each other. I don't think the current sources establish this... Although this article meets our good article standards, and is certainly well-written and well-referenced, I'm not convinced that it isn't ultimately a carefully-constructed piece of original research.' Robofish (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They do indeed appear lumped together in such books as The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World and its many imitations, which is why I recommend refocusing it onto an article on decisive battles instead. We unquestionably have the basis here from which to do just that and if something meets Good Article standards, it means it is salvageable in some capacity. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But we have the article on the 15 Decisive Battles. It shows the real deal; the notion of swarthy enemy hordes, of implacable barbarian warlords, of decisive battles in general, is very much an 1851 worldview. Abductive (reasoning) 08:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As such, that is a call to redirect to that article or even merge to it as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be synthesis. As with almost every article at AfD, any user is free to request that an administrator userfy it. I'd be more than happy to do it myself, and no special "userfy" vote is necessary here. AniMate 23:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and clean up lead. Very well referenced article. It was a good article at one point for godsakes.Ikip (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - synth and as per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes indeed, a valid point to make (as well as the fact that this is a policy violating case of WP:SYNTH. From WP:PERNOM which you soo handily linked to, says in part: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom"." Sincerely.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article passes WP:SYNTH and the nomination has been challenged. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's see what PERNOM says: "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged". If you want to quote your favorite essay, then at least try to follow it completely, instead of acting in a way discouraged by it... Fram (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't change that using a "per nom" vote when the nom has been challenged is also discouraged as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is discouraged by an essay which many people disagree with (in part or completely). However, since you obviously agree with the essay (as evidenced by the number of times you have linked to it), you should be following it. You can't expect other people to take your argument seriously if you don't even follow the same essay. Fram (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Deleting this article is discouraged per WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Which has nothing to do with the comment you replied to. Fram (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:A Nobody has restored this article's old content under an old title [22], which was agreed to be turned into redirect in discussion back at 2007 already. He hasn't mentioned this action highly relevant to this AfD anywhere, and I would describe the edit summary he used for such major edit as "insufficient".--Staberinde (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see my edit summary got cut off. And if we're going by discussions from 2007 as a test case for anything, then by that logic this is still considered a "good article". Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reverted the sweeping change made with the misleading summary. He will need to seek consensus for that.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have note as much on a talk page (as of the time of typing this, no one has replied to me yet). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - (as of the time of typing this, no one has replied to me yet) Yeah, obviously nobody has replied to it, because you entered notice to talk page 15:00, just one minute before entering this comment here. I am starting to run low of good faith here.--Staberinde (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It does not appear that WP:BEFORE has been followed, i.e. clearly information from this former Good article could/should have been merged and at worst it redirected elsewhere prior to the AfD. Please remember, deletion is an extreme last resort and certainly not something to do when other options exist. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Merged to a non-existant article? How would one do that? Wouldn't it be better if you first identified which info in this article is not already contained in other articles (like those on the different battles or on the history of Europe) and of sufficient quality (relevance, reflecting current historical insights, ...) to be retained (in a merge)? A redirect is useless, as this is not a reasonable search term. Fram (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It is a reasonable search term for some as it is totally reasonable for someone to search for something like "Battles involving invasions of Europe", which I personally have used as a search term. And I doubt I am the only person to ever do so. As for what is mergeable, consider Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe#Battle_of_Vienna and Battle_of_Lepanto_(1571)#Religious_significance. Hanson's quotation that "To sixteenth century Christians, the sudden muster and vast size of the Christian fleet at Lepanto were proof of Christ to resist the Muslim onslaught" demonstrates the religious significance of the victory to the comabtants and would help flesh in that short section of the main articles. The entries on this list contain various such examples that indeed are not duplicative of the main battle articles and for which we can actually augment those battle articles. I realize now that this discussion is becomming heated, but I just cannot imagine why on earth we would be so bent on deleting this article at the detriment of improving another? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis ~~per DGG~~ and others. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 15:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nb: DGG has struck his original statement; *I* still feel this is synthesis and original research, as do others. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious synthesis. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aside from obviously not being a synthesis, notice references that appear in this article at Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe#Notes, but not the individual ones:

Battle_of_Thermopylae#References: Grote and Grant from this article could be used in the battle article, which does not cite them.
Battle_of_the_Metaurus#References: The battle article has few references. The content cited from Davis in the list article is different from the citation in the battle article. Thus, this and possibly the other reference from this list would add new content/sourcing to the battle article.
Battle_of_Chalons#Notes: The list article uses Fuller and Davis, which again, the battle article does not. Merging these items would certainly strengthen the sections of the battle article on importance/aftermath.
Battle of Toulouse (721) contains NO internally cited statements, whereas the list article features SIX citations that can be used in the battle article, thereby taking an article on a major battle with no footnotes and adding at least six to it.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about merging: yes, some of the sections have material not in the individual battle articles. I do not think a delete decision here means we can not add that material as appropriate. Ive modified my !vote accordingly to !delete and merge selectively, which can be done by merging the histories as needed.

I remind people that the point is not the content on the individual battles, but rather whether an article with any precise selectivity of this sort can be included in the absence of clear outside sourcing to that effect. How can we assert on the basis of sources that these are the 8 most important battles, and that it should not be 7 or 9 or 15? Does A Nobody wish to say on the basis of his professional reputation that there is consensus among historians that there are eight principal ones, and only eight? If so, where's the reference. to such consensus--or even to any outside source giving precisely eight? Could I do an article on "The 8 most important US presidents?" Could someone else do an article on " the 7 most really important presidents?" I am aware of the straw man fallacy, but I propose these as exact analogies in the same field. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my comment as no longer applicable to the present state of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would stake my reputation on the basis of an article covering something like "presidents considered the greatest" as having value as it is indeed a topic of book-length inquiry as seen here and here. Again, my argument with regards to this article is per Wikipedia:Merge and delete and WP:PRESERVE, we have content that can be used to improve other articles, that is not duplicative content. As for whether or not this article should stand or be redirected after a merge, I am not opposing an additional merge and redirect to something on Decisive battles in general, which I have been working on earlier at User:A Nobody/List of decisive battles. Yes, this article is titled is indeed disputable and even I dispute its current choices at Talk:Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe#Replace_Thermopylae_with_Salamis, but historians have indeed written about certain battles as having what could be called "macrohistorical importance", from The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World to Decisive Battles and in such book and TV show listings, we do usually see a handful of the same battles almost always appearing and as such just as Historical rankings of United States Presidents is a valid subject, perhaps a reworking along the lines of Historical rankings of important battles or something to that effect is as well? My concern here is that we have not yet brainstormed all possible alternatives to redlinking at this time. Thank you for your thoughts. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many excellent points there ANobody, I think following improvements we could keep the article as a whole but maybe change the name slightly and add a few more battles to round it off? FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant synthesis. We are encyclopedians, not historians. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An objective look at the authors of many print encyclopedias reveals that the authors on historical subjects are indeed historians. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A Nobody: I'm requesting you to refrain from commenting on my !votes from now on. 17:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    - This is a discussion not a vote and in discussions editors challenge incorrect statements, but if you do not comment after me in any further discussions, I will gladly not show up in any AFDs and reply to you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question What is the reasoning behind the bizarre title? Artw (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge - Apparently there's some sources that could be used to argue against WP:SYNTH, though I don;t see them in the lede, and the various sections have some material that could be used elesewhere without problem, and possibly a rename or a change of focus could result in a problem free article, but as it is it;s the WP:NPOV thing that sinks it - why that particular grouping of conflicts? It feels like some weird POV fork take on Europe Vs Islam that's hiding under an overly convoluted name. Delete, let whoever wants it userfy it, and if it spawns new articles that don't have the ick factor then good on it. Alternately make good on some of the merges discussed on the talk page. Artw (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All above reasons for deletion now moot following improvements?

Synth and OR addressed

This was a reasonable nomination as in its previous form the article did indeed violate our synth and OR policies. We've fixed this by. 1) Taking out the claim that their are only 8 specific battles regarded as macro historically significant. 2) Adding a section dealing with the general theme of battles as a macro historic event , well supported with sources. (PS its well accepted practice not to have sources in the lede as long as claims made are validated later on) 3) Adding further quality sources where a major or principal theme is specifically on European / Western Civilisation being saved by decisive battles.

POV addressed

1) The lede has been amended so it doesnt mention Asia and Africa. 2) The fall of Constantinople has been included where Europeans were defeated. 3) Criticism of the overal theme is now included from probably the most formidable ivy leauge opponent of these views , professor Hamid Dabashi . 4) Even reading the web link from Hamid Dabashi , will show that far from being a 19th century view, the position that Europe and the West owe their existence to these key battles still has considerable currency. There are tens of thousands of sources for this, including some that are very recent and high quality like the 2008 work by eminent professor Judith Herrin now added to the article. 5) Neither most of the sources nor the article takes the position that European civilisation is superior - the closest premise to that is that there's something unique about European Civilisation that would have been lost to the world if the continent had been conquered by people with a very different outlook such as the Persians or Muslims.

Having said all that, the concern raised by editor Artw remains valid, historical facts being what they are there will always be a risk of this article being used as a coat rack for anti Muslim propaganda. So I dont mind if its deleted for that reason. But if it gets deleted for synth that will be surreal even by wiki standards! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has definitely improved, but some problems remain. Most major is obviously whole "invasions of Europe thing", as probably only Persian invasion of Greece and Arab siege of Constantinopole qualify as clear cut "invasions of Europe". In many other cases those "invaders" had very solid presence in Europe, and invading armies themselves often came from another part of Europe. De facto current content of article can be summed up roughly as "invasions of Greco-Romano-Christian territories by forces from other cultures". I think POV issues with that are pretty obvious. Although I would note that I don't see any general problem in concept of article about battles with macrohistorical importance like for example Battles of macrohistorical importance in Europe or maybe even Battles of macrohistorical importance for development of Europe etc., and if someone is interested in developing something along those lines, then this article could be userfied as good starting point.

Few comments about modified lead too:

In that sentence what I quoted in AfD nomination I didn't object Asia and Africa part, but actually "threatened the existence of European settlements" part, which practically implies that if battles had ended differently, then some major towns would had been eradicated Carthage style.

Also next sentence about "turning the tide" definitely doesn't apply after you added capture of Constantinopole, ;) although it was problematic for some cases(like Thermopylae) already previously.--Staberinde (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Renaming the article: I agree this would help address the POV concerns, but it would raise other, more serious issues. If the article were renamed to something like 'Battles of macrohistorical importance in Europe', then some of the omissions seem rather odd. In that case, shouldn't it include the great battles of the 19th century, like Austerlitz, Leipzig and Waterloo, or indeed of the 20th century, like the Battle of Stalingrad and Invasion of Normandy? There's no obvious reason why such an article should end in 1683. Perhaps it could be renamed further, to something like 'Battles of macrohistorical importance in Europe in the pre-modern era', but I think that just further highlights the WP:SYNTH issues. I understand the idea of this article, and perhaps there is a legitimate concept behind it - but I don't think the current article makes a brilliant case that this is an encyclopaedic list, and not a piece of original research. Robofish (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having found a cut and paste move from March 2007 in this article's history, I listed it at the WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Flatscan (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The histmerge has been completed. I investigated the page histories after recent edits to the original article were pointed out by Staberinde above. Flatscan (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So people are completely rewriting the article, and renaming it, and changing the scope, just so they can claim that it was kept? Bizarre. If you don't have the old scope, contents, or title, then the original is deleted and a new, somewhat related article is created. Anyway, the rewrite isn't complete enough by far, all the fundamental problems outlined above still exist. What set these eight battles apart from others? They are not about invasions of Europe (only two to four of these could be labeled so with some accuracy), and there are a number of other battles that could just as easily be included. Things like "The salvation of Europe by key battles" (section header) are extremely POV, it is very debatable whether something like the Battle of Toulouse "saved" Europe or held it back for the next five centuries or so. One side won, the other lost, but Europe wasn"t saved or damned, it just had a different history. If this article wants to have a future, it needs a much more thorough rewrite as a whole (the individual parts may be good, but the overall concept is in need of serious rethinking) and a change of title anyway. Deleting and restarting from scratch, while keeping the sources somewhere (preferably a subpage of a relevant project) is still the best solution. Fram (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Fram. While this article has some useful content that has potential for being used elsewhere, its scope would need to be fundamentally redefined and you would basically need to write whole new article.--Staberinde (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, concur with Fram's above comment. This whole long-term pattern is bizarre and is more about battling the Evil Deletionists^™, and 'saving' articles from 'them', than any suposed value the content has. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Two historians, not named or sourced, call ALL of them "of macrohistorical importance"? Where is this "macrohistorical importance" with regards to Europe? The importance of the battles in certain ways are defined in Decisive Battles, but not enough to be all lumped together in an article and defined with a synthesis that could never be fixed. If the material is that valid, then let it be merged with their respective battles. At the minimum, the term 'macrohistorical' needs to go. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 13:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is still a textbook case of synthesis.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Monsieurdl, sources linking the battles together are listed in the The Battle as a macro historical event section , and there are quotes and analyses from historians on why a particular battle was of macro historical importance in the individual sections of the listed battles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent improvements, Feyd! We now have an article that is clearly no longer mere synthesis and the basis from which to move forward as well as material that can still be used to improve other articles. Congratulations on rescuing this article and for going beyond just commenting in the AfD, but for putting in the time and work to find and add sources! You are a model editor! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats very kind of you to say so! Id already read several of the sources from cover to cover so it was no hardship. More improvements on the way. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job Feyd, just keep in mind, no matter how this article is improved there will be some editors who will not change their mind. Really fine job. Ikip (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Its been great to have the additional feedback on the POV issues. The objectionable section heading has been changed. There's no denying the subject is inherently POV, however its a topic which has been the principle theme for many mainstream works. Our policies dont prohibit us addressing POV topics - as long as we respect NPOV by including views from all significant perspectives. It would be great to have further criticism added - I was considering a reference to Guns, Germs, and Steel but havent read the work so arent sure whether it counters the importance of battles or if its just against the bias that Europeans have superior cultural traits.

As I understand it the prevailing view among those interested in macro history & geo strategy is that untill about 500 BC the East was unchallenged for the 1st 2.5 thousand years after civilisation arose, and then for about the same period the balance swung towards the west, though it has only enjoyed net greater capability to project power for about 300 years. According to Niall Ferguson the balance started to swing back towards the East from the early 20th century, and in the last 5 years or so, and especially in the aftermath of the financial crises, its expected the east will once again over take the west sometime this century. This is felt even more keenly on the streets of Chinese and Indian cities than it is by folk here in London. The sort of person who might be offended by the implication of Western superiority is going to know all this, so there probably isnt as much risk of the POV offending anyone as some might think.

reply to Staberinde

On the point about not all the battles being against forces large enough to subdue the continent, this is true but the victories were sufficient to check the overall invasion plans. Around the 7th and 8th century Islam had enormous expansionary force, and their preferred direction of conquest was westward. They also expanded to the East, North and South - but to the east were the developed civilisations of India and China, to the North endless plains and savage nomadic tribes, to the south much of the land was desert. In western Europe they had a settled but undeveloped population, much of the worlds most fertile land, and ancient centres of prestige like Rome, so they directed much of their invasion efforts towards Europe.

Synth

Its hopefully now abundantly clear that there are plentiful quality sources dedicated to the same topic, tying together the various battles with the common theme that they were pivotal events shaping the course of European history. Please can any folk who still feel there's a synth issue after the latest improvements identify specifically which novel or synthetic ideas the article imparts which isnt attributable to the sources? The article rescue squad will be delighted to do the legwork and make any needed improvements! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not abundantly clear, I'm afraid. Thermopylae is not sourced as being of macrohistorical importance. Marathon is the same. Metaurus is the same.

The sentence under Second Arab Siege of Constantinople that says it is of macrohistorical importance is unsourced here: "It has macrohistorical importance in that, had Constantinople fallen to this massive force of invaders, the Byzantine Empire most likely would have disintegrated and opened up new opportunities for Muslim expansion into Europe 700 years ahead of the Ottoman invasions."

This material in Chalons is not referenced- "Other historians such as Paul K. Davis agree that the Christian victory at Toulouse was important in a macrohistorical sense; it gave Charles Martel badly needed time to strengthen his grip on power and build the veteran army which stood him in such good stead eleven years later at Tours." OK, so where does he say it is of macrohistorical importance? What book or article? What page number?

In Tours, everything is as it should be, except the interpretation of the source does not support the text as being of macrohistorical importance, which is fatal. Here it is, straight from the article:

Other historians, such as William Watson and Antonio Santosuosso agree that the Battle was of macrohistorical importance as it brought the powerful Frankish army into the conflict, but are more nuanced in their interpretation of the battle's place in history; Watson writes:

"There is clearly some justification for ranking Tours-Poitiers among the most significant events in Frankish history when one considers the result of the battle in light of the remarkable record of the successful establishment by Muslims of Islamic political and cultural dominance along the entire eastern and southern rim of the former Christian, Roman world. The rapid Muslim conquest of Palestine, Syria, Egypt and the North African coast all the way to Morocco in the seventh century resulted in the permanent imposition by force of Islamic culture onto a previously Christian and largely non-Arab base. The Visigothic kingdom fell to Muslim conquerors in a single battle on the Rio Barbate in 711, and the Hispanic Christian population took seven long centuries to regain control of the Iberian peninsula. The Reconquista, of course, was completed in 1492, only months before Columbus received official backing for his fateful voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Had Charles Martel suffered at Tours-Poitiers the fate of King Roderick at the Rio Barbate, it is doubtful that a "do-nothing" sovereign of the Merovingian realm could have later succeeded where his talented major domus had failed. Indeed, as Charles was the progenitor of the Carolingian line of Frankish rulers and grandfather of Charlemagne, one can even say with a degree of certainty that the subsequent history of the West would have proceeded along vastly different currents had ‘Abd ar-Rahman been victorious at Tours-Poitiers in 732."[26]

Do you see where I am going with this? You may say it is in the article, but my examination of this article says that is wrong. I'm sorry; your case to keep is wholly unproven. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the extract from the source may be relatively more nuanced than some other claims, but its still very much of the POV that the battle had macro historical importance. I've took the liberty of bolding the key clause for you in your edit above. I agree it would be good to have more sources supporting the view that the battles significance has been exaggerated, but sadly the extract supplied doesnt help much.

Battles like Tours and Marathon are supported as having macro historical importance many times over. They are both featured for example in, The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World and their significance is also treated in the Oxford University Press source Worlds at War: The 2,500-year struggle between East and West. It would be tedious to list all the cites for the battles, but heres an extract to the article asserting the macro historical importance of Marathon "the interest of the whole worlds history hung trembling in the balance" - original source Hegel , but quoted in a recent book by Tom Holland so cited to that. (I'll add a cite for a second modern historian who considers Marahon to be a pivotal battle for european history - there are scores available!) And heres a cite asserting macro historical importance for both Tours and the siege of Constantiople:

“

Also in 2008, Professor Judith Herrin has wrote that had Constantinople not thwarted the first and second arab siege of Constantinople, the attackers would have used the resources of the capital city to spread Islam into the Balkans, Italy and western Europe. She says Constantinople’s resistance of the second and first siege, along with Charles Martel's victory against invaders at Tours, were crucial to allowing European society to take shape at a time when it was politically fragmented and undeveloped"

”

--quote above cited in the article to Byzantine , a book recently published by a university press and written by eminent professor Judith Herrin. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have solved the POV section header by adding "alleged" to it... Doesn't make it any better though. Still, the basic problems stay, e.g. that many, if not most, of these battles do not even involve an invasion of Europe. Fram (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific battles do you consider not to involve an invasion of Europe? If there wasnt an actual invasion force on the field, one would likely have followed if the foreign force has triumphed- thats implicit, and indeed in some cases directly spelled out, in the sources that consider the battles to have macro historical importance.

For me the word alleged makes all the difference - the only other improvement needed is more sources like Dabashi to offer alternative perspective. But if theres a better title for the section please discuss or go ahead and make the change! FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reprint of a post I made the 18th here: "As I said above, are the Huns a "foreign power"? Or are they as European as Russia? Was Al-Andalus a foreign power invading Europe? How long does one have to live in Europe before one becomes European? Why is one empire with Constantinopel as its capital considered as a European empire threatened by invasion, and another Empire with Constantinople as its capital a foreign power invading Europe? This article is filled with a 19th century based romantic view of the Christian, superior Europe defending itself against the barbarian unbelieving hordes from the South and the East. Not the kind of POV that should support a current article." Fram (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully there's no need to repeat the evidence that far from being confined to the 19th century, its a very current view. If you dont want to take my word or re-examine the numerous current sources, see the article from its harshest critic, which offers a great overview of how prevalent the view is, including reference to a resurgence of popular interest in the 1980s , more recent interest, and lots of reference to sources not mentioned in the article or on this talk.

As for the Huns, surely what really matters is how the sources view them? From the quote in the article by historian Paul K. Davis: "Roman defeat of the Huns stopped the Asian spread westward, setting up the collapse of Attila's empire two years later" I personally agree that the Huns are about as European as Russia. However, and this is important, historically the lands that now form Russia had a much more Asian character. Her culture was deliberatly shifted towards the west by Peter the Great. (To the worlds loss IMO and according to Spengler, as it delayed the emergence of a specifically Russian civilisation that would have launched a third great issue of Christianity with a more eastern character, based on the Gospel of St John and preaching the doctrine of universal Love.) A google on "Petrinism Russia" will turn up some good sources if you're interested in reading more on this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:13, 20 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) 02:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Our Understanding of the Universe[edit]

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

Pretty sure this does not meet the notability criterion. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book seems to be covered by the "acedemic book" section of WP:Notability (books) in that it is published by an academic press (Oxford press) and it is widely cited in other academic publications (both journal articles and other books). Some of these other books discuss its contents in some detail for example: [23], [24], [25]. Google scholar gives 32 publications that cite this book as a reference. According to Amazon the book has been reviewed by both Publishers Weekly and Library Journal. The article probably needs to cite some of this secondary material, but it doesn't seem to have a notability problem. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is POV, OR and puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and trim. Very well known book by major author --in over one thousand worldCat libraries. Reviews are needed, but they should be easy enough to find. The writing in the article looks like copypaste to me, and needs to be rewritten so it describes the book, not advocates the theory. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is poorly structured and doesnt give indication of notability (and thus deserves a tag for that), but is published by major presses, and author is notable. POV, puffery are not reasons for deletion unless the subject is hopelessly unsalvageable. OR is grounds for deletion, but this isnt OR, unless the books summary is. that can be trimmed. heres OR for you: Kurt Godel proposed the same idea while in talks with einstein, and theres even a book on the subject," A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein" by Palle Yourgrau . i bet this book mentions godel. combining these 2 books would be OR. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Article clearly meets notability criteria per Rusty Cashman. It needs verification from reliable sources, but said sources clearly exist. Everything else is an editing problem, not a reason for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly passes WP:BK with extensive reviews such as this one by Ilya Prigogine for The Times Higher Education Supplement, this in The New York Times and this in The Boston Globe. No disrespect intended to Headbomb and Xxanthippe, but I prefer to accept a Nobel Laureate's judgment over theirs about the notability of this book it its field. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article implies that the book is mainstream science, a view rejected by Prigogine who views it, at best, as speculative philosophy. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

That's a problem that can be fixed by editing, not a reason to delete the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:28, 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. I note that the AFD template was not added to the article until the 15th, but I see no other reasonable outcome for this discussion, and no additional comment have been made in the past 2+ days. There is no point relisting this. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Mumford[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stephen Mumford

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

Not notable academic philosopher: neither very well-known nor influential. Has published with good presses etc. but so have very many other philosophers who wouldn't be regarded as warranting Wikipedia entry. --Alephomega (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC) — Alephomega (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. There was no AfD notice on the article. I have placed one there now so the seven days of discussion should start from now. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full professor, head of department and now head of School of Humanities at a Russell Group university is pretty obviously going to turn out to be notable, and that is confirmed by the reviews of his work cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and can't we get some mechanism that prevents new editors from starting AfDs within, say, their first 10 (or even 50) edits? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous published reviews of his work,e.g. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33], etc. Also, here is a quote from a 2003 article in the Sydney Morning Herald [34]: "McIntosh tracked down brilliant young English metaphysician Stephen Mumford, of Nottingham University..." Certainly passes WP:PROF. Kinoq (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Top GS cites 182, 47, 46, 30... and for reasons above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. 'Will turn out to be notable' does not equal 'notable'. Published reviews of work means little; most books published by reputable presses get reviewed within journals, and reviews in journals are rarely very critical. And the 'Sydney Morning Herald' - since when did philosophical stature get judged by single adjectives in newspapers? But this cause is perhaps lost. --Alephomega (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Goff[edit]

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

Article about a soap character with no references, no source, nothing. Only plot. Nor even when the character appeared. Magioladitis (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:48, 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 ∞ 16:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Staberinde (talk) 17:32, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No More Drama World Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable event Orange Mike | Talk 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs expansion, not deletion. There is significant coverage of the tour in media publications that could be used to add verifiable details. That coverage also shows notability. -- Atama頭 23:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:59, 6 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 James086^{Talk | Email} 16:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thea Gill[edit]

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

Questionably notable living person who has apparently requested deletion. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Google News shows lots of references to indicate notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically addressing the subject requesting deletion, I don't think the star of a well-known TV show counts as "marginally notable". Hence, while her content concerns should be taken into account, the article should not be deleted as part of them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is adequate IMHO...Subject requesting deletion might be a concern that I don't have the experience to address Tiderolls 14:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; an awful lot of effort today went into protecting this article against a person who may well turn out to be an impostor of the *notable* subject! Blindly deleting based mostly on the assumption that this user is actually telling the truth (which seems more and more unlikely by the minute) would be a very bad call. SMC (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Pmlineditor ∞ 16:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets the requirements of WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets requirement for WP:BIO. If someone is claiming to be her for article deletion, or even if it is her, it has no bearing on deletion. Angryapathy (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even granting the unconfirmed premise that the editor in question actually is Ms. Gill, she hasn't ever requested deletion of the whole article, only of certain statements within it. And an actor who had a major role in a prominent and popular television series which lasted five years is certainly notable enough for us. Give it a once-over for BLP stuff, but keep. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Clearly not of marginal notability but just notable. Moreover, it isn't at all clear that the individual in question is actually the subject. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable sources and several awards well meets GNG. -- Banjeboi 03:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability established. If the person requesting the article be trimmed is indeed THE Ms. Gill, her concerns inre statements in the article will be doubly looked into, as all BLPs must meet the requirements of WP:BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per all the above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked Hipocrite about withdrawing so I can do a WP:Speedy keep. I generally don't believe in snow jobs.... -SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've responded that I would have no problem with anyone snow closing this as keep or whatever, or NACing it as keep, even if they voted, or whatever, but because I still feel the encyclopedia is better without this article, I can't, in good concience, remove my nomination. Sorry. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That works for me -- will someone please snow close this then, so that other editors' time is not spent on this as the conclusion is clear? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't, I !voted already. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the reasons above. Dream Focus 16:18, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent disobedience[edit]

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

Made up some day, or some combination. Should be CSD, but its not. 7 day deliberation. Shadowjams (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

y is this bad? seems what i do for a living. sry. don't get this.

Although the article itself is too short and not very well written, and the phenomenon of disobedient guide dogs probably does not merit its own article, there are many references on the web, over a period of several years, to intelligent disobedience as it relates to corporate culture and management styles. It would be better to expand the article, rather than deleting it. Peter Chastain (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i tried to clean it up. - Fawn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest Fawn (talk • contribs) 14:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is in poor state right now, and the one source listed is a blog, but the term has a lot of hits on google. Topic meets WP:N; article, however, needs lots of work. Angryapathy (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe incubate, there seems to be potential for an encyclopedic article on this subject. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it just passes the notability guideline. Article needs work and expansion, but these can be done, as I believe the sources exist. I would do it myself, but I'm not very good at that sort of thing, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 21:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the word may be used more with organizations and training than with dog obedience. agree it should be rewritten, but this article as it stands doesnt show notability, and could be deleted safely. im not sure if incubation or userfication is appropriate, and i also dont know how successful those moves are, but if they tend to create better articles, id say do that, esp. if people step forward to help. (i cant right now).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would support userfication or a merge to Assistance dog (which is the main article on the topic), but there simply is not enough for this topic to be individually notable. That's demonstrated even better by the lack of reliable sources. Shadowjams (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm somewhat shocked to see this nomination. What insensitive rubbish to claim it was "made up some day", as the nominator claims. The article need tidying up, and may be difficult to source appropriately, but anyone with any experience with guide dogs knows this is a highly relevant entry for Wikipedia, and has the potential to be developed into an interesting article. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you talking about the three references added since I nomed it? Or the comms above that recommend its merge. The fact is, the guide dog information would be substantially more useful in an article that covered the whole topic, and that built on that already "interesting article", rather than some offshoot that had some existential potential that nobody else here had the motivation to actually demonstrate. Shadowjams (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per multiple reliable sources now added to the article. I wouldn't necessarily object to a redirect and merge as Shadowjams outlined above, but since the concept seems to be discussed in multiple reliable sources I'd personally prefer it have it's own article. It would be nice if it could be expanded though, it's a pretty interesting topic. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:04, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natacha Merritt[edit]

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

Not notable Rhomb (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. The article asserts none of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. She has published a NN book: not enough. An interview and an article about photographing herself giving oral sex) may support WP:V but hardly WP:N. Rhomb (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], and [40]. I'd rather not have articles this on Wikipedia, but she is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

Which of these do you think this person has met? Rhomb (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." WP:CREATIVE is part of WP:BIO. She meets WP:BIO#Basic criteria. Joe Chill (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumed" perhaps -- presumptions are rebuttable. Since "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", I claim that mere sensationalism over her work is trivial, and that this is supported by the fact that the failure to meet the criteria I quoted above supports that assessment. Rhomb (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per years of community consensus, the links show notability and this article will be kept for sure. Joe Chill (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like Joe Chill, I'm not a fan of her work and I wouldn't give her the time of day. But that's neither here nor there -- other people have, as the sources listed in the article and by Joe Chill clearly show. (Also, a number of other sources are behind pay walls.) She meets WP:BIO, and saying that the sources are trivial sounds a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As to the claim that the book isn't notable, Wikipedia:Notability (books) says a book is notable if "the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." The book has been reviewed in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The Guardian, among others.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:51, 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, Pmlineditor ∞ 11:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. J04n(talk page) 12:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm puzzled that anyone should bother to !vote "keep" when they would both rather see the article not here? Rhomb (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because she passes WP:BIO. Voting delete by our personal opinions won't get it deleted. Joe Chill (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:RS's provided by Joe Chill have been incorporated into the article. It still needs to be expanded but the groundwork has been laid. She is clearly WP:N. J04n(talk page) 01:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not much to add to Joe Chill and Fabrictramp. They've really covered everything. Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 18:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obvious notability. Specific contribution to her art form. Addressed in mainstream news media. Hektor (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's verifiability, not notability. Rhomb (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link you give for notability (WP:CREATIVE) lists "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." That seems to be exactly what Hektor is saying.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read the Salon article [41], and she is clearly notable. Dream Focus 14:26, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 by Secret (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek dika[edit]

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

Does not meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. PROD contested by anonymous IP editor. Favonian (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 03:59, 14 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, A graduate student, with no evidence of notability under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with most students, open-and-shut case. Anon de-prodder should have had the courtesy to save us the work for such an obvious delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. An editor claiming to be Tarek Dika has removed most of the information from the article with this edit. I interpret the summary to imply that he would like the article deleted. In view of the emerging consensus, could we speedy the article? Favonian (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being Bold and nominating it for speedy deletion as per above. Tresiden (talk) 17:54, 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 keep. Merging can be discussed on the associated talk pages. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centre-left[edit]

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

Centre-left/Centre-right are vague terms that have no clear definitions. Essentially they mean a position between the centre and the Left or Right. There are no clear definitions for the terms, and no literature to support the articles. Despite existing for several years, no sources have been found and they are entirely original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for same reason:

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

Comment: This might be appropriate as a dicdef, but even then I'm not convinced. The subjectivity is problematic, and I'm not sure I'd call a leftist democratic socialist party "centre-left" because it isn't rabidly communist. - BalthCat (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are indeed problems with the current articles, particularly the classification of various parties without sources. However, looking through the various google results linked above, there are loads of sources that use the term, and many that appear to be specifically about the concept. Socio-political terms are generally vague, and vary in interpretation from country to country, but that does not mean that we cannot have an article if sources are available that discuss the terms. Many of the sources are behind pay walls, but decent ones I found include: [42], [43]. I may come back and add more when I have time, but they certainly appear to be there. Quantpole (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both these articles are clear that there are no accepted definitions of these terms and they are using special definitions for their papers. In fact they are defined differently in the two papers. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put it bluntly, so what? The article can say that there aren't accepted definitions, and cover the range of uses. There isn't an accepted definition of London, but we still have an article on it. Quantpole (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the articles are problematic, and would prefer the lists of parties to be removed, but these are common terms in public discourse, and many, many wikipedia articles link to them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Left-right politics. These terms are relative and so only make sense when presented in the context of the full spectrum and history of left/right. When split off, as currently, they just invite laundry lists of examples which are tendentious and so will tend to lead to silly disputes about whether a particular example falls in that part of the spectrum. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Found this as a result of Talk:Daily Mail where one editor seems insistent that "centre-right" is not a meaningful term as it may refer to a coalition. Collect (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC) redacted as a result of being charged with having a bias against the proposer - as such was not my intent, I redact the !vote Collect (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Deleting it would create redlinks in 585 articles. The article has had 123 non-IP editors. The definition is very carefully worded, useful, and stable by now. It would not be hard to find sources discussing the term, but adding all these contradictory and often naive opinions would not add any value. The editors in their collective wisdom have agreed on some original research and come up with a useful dictionary definition. 585+123=COMMON SENSE. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "definitions" included in the articles are bordering on nonsense, since they only apply to a limited subset of countries in the world. While left-right is commonly used, the definition of what is considered left or right varies widely. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the set of policies considered "center" varies from one country to another, but in a given country most people have no problem identifying which parties are to the left or the right of the center. A set of policies that are center-left in one country could be seen as right-wing in another, left-wing in a third. That does not mean the term is meaningless, just that it describes a relative position. Like Northern Australia and Southern Europe. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But whether the definitions and examples in the article are good or not, whether they are original research, whether the article is just a dictionary definition, are side-issues to me. What do we do with the 585 links? A reader clicking on center-left would not expect to see an article on left-right politics. They would expect an article that discusses what is meant by center-left. Either we work through all 585 articles taking out the links (I am not volunteering), or we leave this article and improve it. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep vagueness is no reason to delete an article. Can you define what God is? There is no clear definition of that either, still a wikipedia article exists. C mon (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added some original research to the article. I will observe how it evolves with considerable interest. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment links for centre-left and centre-right could be changed to centre-left and centre-right. Readers could then decide what the writer meant. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on that. First, who is going to work through the 585 links? And "centre-left" is a phrase in itself, meaning left of the center, but near the center, whatever the center happens to be in any given country. I have added some refs to the article, but not yet to the examples. If each example had a source showing that party was indeed considered center-left in its country, I think the article would be o.k. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are over two hundred political parties listed in the two articles not of which have references. Finding sources for all of them would not be easy. It is circular reasoning anyway. The article about Party X says it is centre-right so the reader clicks on centre-right and it provides a link to Party X. Much better just to include a reference on the article about Party X that it is considered centre-right. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started adding a few refs to the list, and now am wondering if the list makes any sense at all. It is hopelessly incomplete, always will be, and the classification is sometimes sort of subjective. The ANC defines itself as "left", but in South Africa it is dominant. Maybe South Africa is a centre-left country, and the ANC is centrist in South Africa. But South Africa is left compared to what? China? India? Brazil? I'm inclined to just scrap the list. There must be other, more complete, lists of parties that define ideological alignment. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the press often use the terms to distinguish between radical and moderate parties. Conservative parties generally describe themselves as centre or centre-left,[44] rather than right-wing, while social democratic parties are more likely to describe themselves as "left", rather than centre-left. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at comments above, I don't see any objection to ripping out the list. List of political parties by country is more comprehensive, and Leftish Parties of the World seems a good external link. If there are no objections, I will cut out the list. I will first expand the body, with sources, because there do seem to be two views: centre-left in an global sense and centre-left in a local sense. The article on the Liberal party of Canada says it sits between the centre-left and centre (CCL?), true in a Canadian context, but within the global political spectrum I would see it as well to the right. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Keep. Keep the overhauled version of Centre-Left, and redirect Centre-Right to this article. Generalize to show that both terms refer to positions close to the centre. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Both articles are widely used labels notable enough for their own article; and, even if the current articles are lackluster, they can be improved. --darolew (talk) 21:06, 19 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) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rose (writer)[edit]

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

No longer notable in videogames journalism field or scriptwriting Bumlord97 (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if he is not currently relevant to journalism or scriptwriting, his credits are sufficient enough to make him notable in the encyclopedic sense. —C.Fred (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C.Fred. Article more than amply shows his notability. Nominator does not make a convincing argument. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (EC). Per C.Fred, notability is not temporary. Article seems to suggest an obvious notability. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article feels more like a fan's shrine to the writer, and even then doesn't do a very good job. After reading the article several times, I don't see how this writer is any more notable than Chris Dahlen, Alex Walker and Amanda Swift, who don't have their own wikipedia articles. Writing a book that no one has heard of and creating a load of failed pilots is hardly a sign of notablity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.42.126 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — 81.179.42.126 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Is he really worthy of a page on wikipedia? I can think of more culturally important people and events that don't have a wikipedia page, like Lord Worm of Cryptopsy, or the entire wigger slam movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.210.94 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — 78.145.210.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly seems notable from what I can tell, and as said above, notability is not temporary. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, well sourced. Additionally both delete votes came from one-edit or few-edit IPs. --Teancum (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't currently have the best sourcing, though sources seem scarce for even the most well-known of games journalists, such as the eventually deleted Stuart Campbell (journalist). That Rose was responsible for Digitiser as well as having been a long-term contributor to Edge and others, on top of his TV work, game work, and awards, should mean that he's notable enough IMO. Miremare 21:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's no such thing as "no longer notable"; someone has either met WP:BIO or they haven't. Marasmusine (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – I smell socks → [45]. MuZemike 17:23, 19 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) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linear Programming Language[edit]

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

Mathematical modeling language and modeling system with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-consumer software with no showing of historical or technical importance, also promotional and non-neutral in tone: LPL is a powerful modeling language and a full-fetched mathematical modeling system with a point-and-click interface. "Full-fetched?" - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:50, 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. copyvio Ged UK 12:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Wong (Professor)[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator, which is a WP:SPA for Ken Wong and his company (article deleted). This bio article fails WP:PROF. Awards listed are not notable by our standards. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete wikipedia is not for advertising Theserialcomma (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete almost entirely a copyvio of [46] and so tagged. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 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. NW (Talk) 04:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David F. Percy[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (academics) Pdcook (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2009 (

Delete I don't see any claims of notability here. Maybe we should make a general rule that no one named "David Percy" is ever notable? Brianyoumans (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional information. Additional referenced sources around Fellowships of two national bodies added. Information on work for National Lottery Commission added, EPSRC, organising International Conefernce for IMA, his place on their council etc. Hope this is now enough, but I can make it more solid if anyone else required additional notability. Steve-Ho (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If he meets the threshold for inclusion, then everyone here, here and here also does. Most of them have received a federal grant of some sort and have served on many boards, councils, etc. Can you explain which number from Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria David F. Percy meets?

- I don't want to get into a debate about if the staff you note meet WP:PROF - many may, it's just that no-one has created wikipedia pages for them yet. Percy I would argue meets WP:PROF under - 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (as evidenced in the article, is currently fellow of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications and was fellow of Royal Statistical Society) and 5. The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (has personal chair, appointed by University of Salford in 2008, again referenced in the article) Steve-Ho (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications and Royal Statistical Society are "highly selective" and at the same level as National Academy of Sciences, then I agree he meets criterion 3. As for criterion 5, perhaps in the physical sciences a "named chair" means something different than it does in business. For example, Ronald T. Raines is a Henry Lardy Professor of Biochemistry. So I guess if David Percy has an equivalent position, he meets criterion 5. Thanks for your hard work! Pdcook (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RSS is not selective; all its members are known as fellows, as our article on it clearly states. As for IMA Fellow (not to be confused with that other IMA at the University of Minnesota), it seems to be based more on length of membership than accomplishments, so again I would say it is insufficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the personal chair (WP:PROF#C5). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to weak delete due to the continued lack of evidence that he actually has a personal chair (see discussion below), nor that he passes any other criterion of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO, at least not in a way that meets WP:V. The link for his profile on the article does not even list him by name. I could not find evidence of the subject’s alleged chair or distinguished professor appointment, which would support keeping under WP:PROF criterion #5; or of meeting WP:PROF criterion #3 (elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association; fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor). In terms of citations, I do not think he meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), since GS gives a lifetime total of 287 citations and an h-index of 9.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link is now fixed to his profile Steve-Ho (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless cites on WoS are better than those on GS (h = 7). Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, despite the apparent personal chair. Yes, we usually allow universities to be the judge, we simply follow their lead, etc. But Salford is embarrassing itself here, and this particular former polytechnic has demonstrated just how deep these places sometimes dig to come up with professors: 12 whole journal articles and you're in! I've seen several instances of so-called professors in the UK who have achieved their position entirely through brown-nosing, and I'm not troubled in the slightest by exercising some independent judgement in this particular case. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a serious bit of a lack of NPOV "these places" etc - The University of Salford has never been a Polytechnic - it was a University in 1967 when it was formed as one of the Plate Glass Universities. I have no idea why he was awarded a Professor - perhaps it was in recognition of the wider impact of his work. Steve-Ho (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize this isn't quite post-1992 (though it was in fact a polytechnic, earlier). But the decision to make this guy a professor gives it that flavour. I too have no idea why he's a professor. But I've seen enough dodgy professors here to take it with a grain of salt when I see 12 journal articles. If this article doesn't get deleted I won't go crying to DRV. I'm simply trying to offer a view rooted in my own version of common sense. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pardon my ignorance for the way things are done in the UK, but I couldn't find anything about a "personal chair" in this reference. Is it assumed in the UK system that if someone is called a professor then they have a personal chair? Pdcook (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy: no. I used the term following others' lead -- but it appears that you are right in thinking he is a professor but not a personal chair. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:24, 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) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bullen (wrestler)[edit]

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

Non-notable professional wrestler; the article appears to be written by Mr. Bullen. Google searching does not dig up anything to confirm notability as per WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE. Warrah (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Canadian Wrestling Federation is a rather small organisation from what I can dig up. The others listed are even smaller. - BalthCat (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 13:43, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of serial killers by race[edit]

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

There are serious problems in this article: how is race defined for purposes of classification here? Self-identification of race by the criminal? As an example, people who identify themselves as Hispanic but have dark skin are sometimes called black or African-American in press articles: who would be right in that case? You can easily classify someone by date of birth, place of birth, occupation, etc., but race is not always so easy to classify. There's an empty section "Multiracial & Other": who isn't multiracial? Also, lumping "Asian" and "Indian" together into a single group makes little sense. This article seems like an impossible task to make scientifically accurate and objective. Unreferenced, original research per WP:NOR. MuffledThud (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete great jumping POV. The nominator is right, race is tricky at best to classify. Also, this seems to have issues with verifiability and original research to boot. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nominator's concerns on racial classification issues. Warrah (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Also, even if it were less controversial and subjective it doesn't seem as obviously useful as ...by country - is any purpose served by listing together all the, say, black serial killers of Canada, France, UK, New Zealand? Declan Clam (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. problems include: ted bundys father is unknown, thus unknown ethnicity. and his article doesnt say he is white. and, of course, race is a social construct, so while it may be a NOTABLE idea worthy of various articles, etc, race as an objective, encyclopedic classification scheme at WP must be extremely limited. this is not an instance for using it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unacceptable list. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not at all hard to figure out what race somebody is... nobody ever says, "well, we can't be sure whether the first 42 men who were U.S. presidents were white or not". Nor do I think it's politically incorrect. On the other hand, I don't see the point of grouping serial killers by race, any more than grouping them by religious denomination or national ancestry (which is why we don't have "list of Baptist serial killers" or "list of Italian-American organized crime figures"). List of serial killers by country is a different matter entirely, because the killer, the victims, the investigators, the scene of the crime, etc., are all part of the same nation. If someone can make a convincing argument about why this list is necessary, then, by definition, I'll be convinced. Mandsford (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that the majority are white, people might be curious to easily find the ones that aren't, just as they might be curious about the ones who are women, or who fall outside of the usual age range. That said, there is the problem of what will be used to determine people's race, as others have noted. However, one would suppose that RS could be found for that. There are racial cats on WP after all, and lists of people by race. 169.226.85.157 (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it is probably written from an American POV, where 80% of the population are white, and includes non-American whites in the list, but excludes non-American blacks (by the section title), then most serial killers in the list are likely to be white. Martin451 (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any redeeming use, this is patently offensive, bordering on vandalism and fighting words. Speedy delete. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for so many reasons. Is a list with no use, not referenced (breaches BLP), very incomplete. Is obviously written by a North American in the way it deals with race, e.g. African American is not a race, and does not deal with Africans in other parts of the world, yet it includes Peter Sutcliff who is British without making reference to where he killed. Hispanic is also not a race, but more of a American way of identify people from ex-Spanish colonies as it does not include ex-Portuguese. This list is too fundamentally flawed to keep. Martin451 (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorising American serial killers by race isn't an encyclopedic treatment of the topic. There's no reason given for such a categorisation. Their notability derives from having killed a lot of people, not from the colour of their skin or their ethnic group. Fences&Windows 00:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per good comments above. I've also recently been removing the (un-created, red-linked) ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Black Serial Killers from articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:58, 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 Withdrawn per WP:HEY. COI and copyright issues resolved by re-stubbing and subsequent expansion; notability was only secondary concern. Cybercobra (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Foundation for Democracy[edit]

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

There are significant copyright and conflict of interest issues with this article (see its history tab) and I am unable to find solid evidence of notability, although I admit I am not well-versed in the subject matter. Cybercobra (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Significant copyright violation of [47]; was created by User:TFD Taipei, which was indef blocked as a promotional corporate account, so conflict of interest issues abound. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of news articles and similar sources available: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What should change to make the wikipedia appropriate?417xinglong147 (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply don't copy their website (WP:COPYVIO). Instead, read newspaper articles about them. Then summarise those articles. cab (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After cab's needed re-stubbing of the article, I have begun adding sources. English sources seem limited, but the Foundation attracts regular news coverage. It is still a stub, but at least has some references now. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:52, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Thompson Mutton[edit]

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

A Google search for "Gerald Thompson Mutton" does reveal a limited number of hits, including references to him receiving the Memorial Cross. But this appears to be impossible, as his particular medal was awarded to spouses and next of kin of all war dead. Unfortunately, the few Ghits are no longer accessible. I've tried to vain to find a WP guideline or even essay on veterans. Is there one? I can only assume that WP:BIO applies, and on that basis, Mr. Mutton does not merit an article due to a lack of encyclopedic notability. My doubts over how he could have received this particular cross leads me to discount the criterion "The person has received a notable award or honor." If someone could clear that up, I might withdraw this nom. (Could he have received some other truly notable honour, with those few Google search results simply mistaken?) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment presumably what is meant is that his family was awarded one upon his death. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:RS. Although admirable, this person's war service does not appear quite notable enough for inclusion, nor does it appear that sufficient creditable/reliable sources exist on the subject. In reply to the nominator's comments, if this person was killed they would have been awarded the Memorial Cross, it just would have been presented to their next of kin as DGG states, however this is not a sufficient honour to meet the criterion outlined. WP:BIO does apply to this article, though the ruff military guideline of WP:MILMOS#NOTE does exist. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, despite admirable service to his country. We do not automatically have a memorial article on every person killed as a soldier during a war. not a memorial. Edison (talk)
Delete, per WP:BIO. As presently written insufficient references to verify notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:24, 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 Speedy keep How anyone could think these articles aren't about notable topics is beyond me; each is reasonably sourced. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rex (dog)[edit]

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

Violates notability requirements. Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Family

Also:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Conmatrix (talk • contribs)

Keep article appears sufficiently referenced to establish notability. Artw (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Artw. Plenty of reliable sources here. Notability doesn't seem to be in question. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provides good, sufficient sources. Meets the notability requirements easily, covered in the mainstream media. coeliacus. (talk.) 03:25, 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. Tone 22:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XiRCON[edit]

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

On June 8, I requested some third party, reliable sources to attest to this software's notability [[48]], and none has been added. I searched for some mentions, and everything I found was either trivial or not reliable. I don't think this software is notable by wikipedia's standards. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significnat coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: un-notable article. South Bay (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

articles don't need to be notable, but the subjects they cover do. riffic (talk) 11:04, 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. JForget 21:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ManTwitty[edit]

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

Non-notable blog per WP:WEB, unreferenced. MuffledThud (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't anything to support the blog being WP:N in its field. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Manchester City F.C.. Steven Walling 05:39, 12 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 01:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable blog. No media coverage, etc. There are thousands of blogs like this, so why does this particluar one warrant an article? No case is made for notability coeliacus. (talk.) 03:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has no sources, makes no claim of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 10:09, 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. JForget 21:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Championships of dog sledding 2011[edit]

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

Too soon Cynof Gavuf 10:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oddly enough, we don't have any articles at all about the International Federation of Sleddog Sports, which has been putting on a championship of its own [49] since 2006. Perhaps this can be reworked into an article about that organization and its competition. I just hope it's not a lot of mush. Mandsford (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is this years away, the article makes no claim of notability for the event. Surely the article creator's time could be better spent filling in the info on sledding events that have already happened. Abductive (reasoning) 02:53, 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. JForget 21:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton cougars field hockey club[edit]

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

Semi professional and fails guidelines. Cynof Gavuf 10:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps this, and other such clubs, can be mentioned in Field hockey in Canada. From what I can tell, there is no national competition for amateur clubs, although this one is said to play against clubs "all over Canada". Mandsford (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even when I search by "Edmonton cougars" "field hockey", there are only 14 Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 02:57, 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. JForget 21:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High Content Screening Informatics[edit]

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

Promotional and is a mess. Not even sure what the content is. Cynof Gavuf 09:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk Page: I added all pubmed refs that use phrase "high content screening" with informatics. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks to be a copyvio of [50]. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into High-content screening. The article in question is "buzz word compliant" but contains little useful information. In addition to copyvio, the phrase "In this article we will give an overview of the considerations that should be kept in mind" which is a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. Boghog (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing worth merging. Not even a neologism. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Copyvio from http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/MB/article.asp?doi=b616187c Abductive (reasoning) 10:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio and notability issues. Angryapathy (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyvio issues as per the above, plus this phrase seems to be merely a synonym for bioinformatics (or a subset of information found in that article). Accounting4Taste:talk 17:17, 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. JForget 21:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ves discography[edit]

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

This appears to be a discography for a musician who has no article about albums that have no articles themselves. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy if there is one available. Note that creator (probably coi, SIRHUGHES for article on Jason E. Hughes) had hijacked the Ves disambigutation page to create a redlink dominated article on the producer sourced only by myspace and twitter ELs [51]. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:22, 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, NW (Talk) 00:36, 13 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 01:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, two weeks and no one realized this easily falls under G8, "subpage without a parent page"?! Open your eyes, people. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Delete Producer has an article, but I see no reason to have this info out on its own. Notable works he produced should already be in his own article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, allowing "discographies" for producers is madness. Abductive (reasoning) 10:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a discography of a dubious self-proclaimed "producer". - Altenmann >t 17:41, 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. JForget 21:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authena[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. Only about 7000 hits on google. Btilm 22:40, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only about 405 hits on google. Also, most of those are glitches in Google's digitizing system, or women who happened to be named Authena. Abductive (reasoning) 10:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious advertising, as well as obviously opinionated original research: It is conjectured that Authena's open design and empowerment of the artist will make it more popular than traditional DRM schemes. Eventually, other DRM schemes will have to open up to compete. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 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. JForget 21:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gori (artist)[edit]

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

I am completing this nomination on behalf of IP 134.106.119.40. Contested PROD: the PROD was placed by IP 134.106.119.38, probably the same user, and the reason given was:

This painter does not fulfil WP:BIO. He is just locally know and has absolutely no importance in German or international art-comunity. The article about Gori in the German Wikipedia was just delet for the same reason.

I express no opinion, but confirm that his article was deleted from German Wikipedia on 25 Oct on grounds of "evident irrelevance" - roughly equivalent to our WP:CSD#A7 though more loosely drawn. JohnCD (talk) 14:14, 29 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) 02:37, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As his website appears to show most of his press in German, in German publications, and de. has deleted him as non-notable, it seems logical to me that we would follow suit. (I checked google: web, news, books and came up dry.) - BalthCat (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sourcing cannot be found. If sourcing is provided, this AfD should not be a bar to recreation of the article. Abductive (reasoning) 10:28, 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 redirect to With the Lights Out. JForget 21:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vendetagainst[edit]

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

Non-notable song —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to With the Lights Out. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:15, 11 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 01:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to With the Lights Out. The article is full of speculation, invention and other unsourced noninformation. Abductive (reasoning) 10:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to With the Lights Out, on which the song was first officially released. Uninteresting song, and the article is rubbish. Cheers, theFace 19:01, 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 redirect to With the Lights Out. JForget 21:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to Me (Nirvana song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song and unreferenced —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to With the Lights Out. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:16, 11 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 01:19, 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 redirect to Left Behind (series). JForget 21:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mac McCullum[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline; no third-party sources are cited. Minor fictional character with no out-of-universe impact. *** Crotalus *** 16:42, 29 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) 02:14, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- pretty much what Crotalus said. I can find no reliable, independent sources that discuss this minor fictional character. Reyk _YO! 01:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Left Behind (series). Joe Chill (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Left Behind (series), seems like a good redirect. Abductive (reasoning) 10:50, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AustinFromNEW[edit]

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

Non-notable artist per WP:ARTIST and WP:BIO, most references given either fail to mention by name or only ambiguously credit "Austin". No significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS. Prod removed by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Googling the name comes up with a number of results in the arts and design world and while the references given in the article aren't really references but apparently mistaken for examples by the author, I think this entry may stay here. Also, the list of publications alone would proof a certain notability. Article needs improvement though. De728631 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not established by an artist having steady work. Narthring (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The subject is an illustrator, so the list of publications could well be a list of illustrations, not a list of material about him. Two of the sources in the article are from Jaguar Shoes, wich is a trendy bar in Shoreditch but not really encyclopedic.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep surely? - They are not the best examples ( the bar was / is frequented by Nathan Barleys ) however, 5 of the opening Adobe Flash images are the only examples to be found online so far... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz71 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's references do not establish notability per any of the points in WP:ARTIST, nor was I able to find anything after searching online. There are many examples of the subject's work but I couldn't find anything that seemed to indicate notability. A third-party reference treating the subject or something similar would help, if such a reference exists. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:ARTIST - There's copy, interview and reference material in existence about this artist, it's just all mainly in print - the influential / pioneering approach (for example - in the introduction of "emailed artwork" to magazines such as Time Out, The Face, Speak and Raygun) is of note, it's the evidence online that's hard to source. The 'Underground' Influences chapter about Austin from NEW in Digital Illustration by Lawrence Zeegen [52] and the Illustration series Book 1: Thinking Visually[53] are just two out of a dozen prime sources in the Book list provided... The notability or notoriety of this artist amongst his peers is something that also exists to a greater degree beyond a comb of the internet... Oz71 (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can we WP:VERIFY this? MuffledThud (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Online?... Hmmm, you can "see inside" at Amazon [54] and if you flick to the last image ( the rear flap ) of the book you can read a bit of blurb about this artist/designer... other than that, (Art/Design School) University libraries or somewhere like Magma [55]? Oz71 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the references given show works by New, but don't show involvement from AustinFromNew (or even "Austin"). The failed-verification tags were removed without explanation from the references I tagged, but I've restored them and added some more. MuffledThud (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but please note: There's incorrect, misspelled ( and plain old cryptic ) credits online as well as in newspapers or printed books - Closer inspection of the 'artwork' itself confirms the hand/hands involved and uncovers pseudonyms... Oz71 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with using non-internet sources. They can be verified by looking at the printed media, though access to such media can be more difficult than online sources. The problem is that there aren't any specific examples from these books stated that establish notability. It's difficult to reasonably establish notability by simply saying something exists somewhere in a certain book; to verify such a claim someone would have to search the entire book looking for something in context. The claim that notability exists in the printed media would carry more weight if those facts that establish notability from the printed media were presented in the article. Citation of those claims would be even better, allowing other editors to easily verify those claims. Narthring (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - It's a bit of a conundrum, but these books are readily available worldwide and can quite easily checked ( there is no need to delete and simply instantly dismiss this article on this basis ) as we are talking about chapters and clearly indexed pages on the artist rather than conjecture or a 'name check' in a footnote - somewhere?... More importantly with illustration - there are copyright laws meaning even if the artist gives permission for these artworks to be reproduced online ( and only if stated in any usage agreement contract have they reserved ALL their rights to do that ) you will then be breaking a law regarding the publishers rights if you reproduce any written material - ie. to put that artists image in context and in effect reproducing part of the book - to prove of it's existence and the artists standing... So surely, the only way is to check the actual books in the book list provided and have the information verified more thoroughly ( over a longer timeframe ) than is currently being given for such a task to be completed more accurately and fairly? - Oz71 (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reproducing a written assertion of notability from any of these books, with a corresponding citation, would not break copyright law in any way. I looked over the information in the books (that I could find) and the real problem is there doesn't seem to be any reliable, third-party references that establish the notability of the subject. The books in the article appear to be works that that artist/illustrator has worked on. To establish notability the subject would have to meet one of the criterion from WP:ARTIST. In a nutshell the subject does not seem to be an important figure, cited widely, to have created a new concept, has not created a significant work, and has not garnered significant critical attention. To satisfy any of these criterion an editor would expect to be able to find a critisim of the subject's work in a third-party reference, an interview with the subject, or something else that would assert notability.Narthring (talk • contribs) 23:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm? There seems to be an issue with continuety here... There are copyright issues and without quoting the author and using their words how do you prove anything unless you know the sources of information beyond what is available online? There seems to be a miss-understanding ( or something ) as the list of publications alone are proof a certain notability - and - Googling the name provides a number of results in the arts and design world ( See also; arts and design and magazines ) - if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_illustrators there appears to be just '3' contemporary UK ones in the whole wide world? Plus - notable Designers suffer the same misfortune here too... If we put AustinFromNEW's Myspace, Twitter, Facebook etc, links up there with his thousands of followers - would that help establish the artists notability onto Wikipedia? - Did we mention he introduced emailing artwork to magazines and newspapers? - There must be a reason why Austin/NEW appears in so many books, no? - Oz71 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not breaking the law if you quote from a text: it's allowed under fair use. Quoting from published sources is the basis for the entire encyclopedia.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if something is NOT available online - how do you verify it here?... The point was, that we can't scan the pages of the books and put them online - and putting examples of the work up out of context doesn't make any sense either? - Just hoped that Wiki would be inclusive as it seems "Notability" is relative, subjective, and a matter of POV? Oz71 (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability, in the Wikipedia sense, is "whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". (from this page) One way to do this is to cite sources so other editors may check them. For example, an article may state "the Titanic was a ship". This could be verified by adding a citation to a reliable source such as this page. Then other editors may look at this source an evaluate whether or not the source states the Titanic was indeed a ship, or whether is source is reliable in the Wikipedia sense of the word as stated here. Sources do not need to be online; if a book is used as a source other editors will look at the book, just as they look at an online resource, and evaluate the source and its assertion.

For the current article's subject the list of publications in itself establishes that the subject is steadily employed. Google hits do not establish notability. Although the subject may be popular enough to have a large Twitter, Facebook, etc. following that also does not establish notability. The general notability guidelines here and specific artist notability guidelines here help us to determine what is or is not notable instead of relying on a relative/subjective point of view. Narthring (talk • contribs) 01:49, 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, Jayron32 05:11, 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, — Jake Wartenberg 00:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References and list of works establish that this artist has steady work, not that they have gotten a lot of attention for it. Miami33139 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References and list of works establish that this artist has steady work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue here is notability, and steady work does not establish notability. Many people have steady work that is verifiable by third-party reliable sources, but they fail all notability standards, as this artist does by the standards set forth in WP:ARTIST and WP:NOTABILITY. Narthring (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Note: WP:NOTABILITY -?- Again, the article is about a specialized field... Oz71 (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mention WP:NOTABILITY because even though the subject fails the narrower definition of WP:ARTIST there is always the chance the subject could have been notable according to the broader criterion set forth in WP:NOTABILITY, though that does not seem to be the case here. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the AfD discussion has been extended a couple of times I think I should state what to me is obvious, that despite the trendy CamelCase, this is an article about someone called Austin who works for a design company called New. The sources (IMHO) list work undertaken by New. They are not third party commentaries on New, even less 'Austin from New'.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The case for deletion seemed clear enough to me after checking the the "sources", and finding a lack thereof. Narthring (talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 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 "keep" opinions mostly do not address the notability issue that has been raised in the nomination. Redirect at editorial discretion. Sandstein 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Maas (missionary)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article should be redirected and merged into Worldwide Faith Missions, since he does not meet the qualifications of notability for a standalone article. That is, there are no significant, independent, reliable sources. Although previous deletion discussion was closed with no consensus, a subsequent review demonstrated that their was sufficient doubt as to the notability of this subject to call for continued discussion. Hokie RNB 05:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep See no reason for an AfD, even a cursory reading the first AfD gives sufficient arguments for keeping this article. Drilling down, more so.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Which arguments in particular do you find compelling? And how do they match up to the notability guideline for people? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's look at the references in the article:

[56] is a copy of the Wikipedia article on Worldwide Faith Missions: not a reliable source.

[57] doesn't mention the subject.

[58] is a link to a Wikipedia image: not a reliable source.

[59] is a link to an image of a magazine published by the subject on Scribd, to which anyone can upload: not independent and not a reliable source.

[60] is a link to a forum post by the subject: not independent and not a reliable source.

[61] is a link to a Wikipedia article that doesn't mention the subject: not a reliable source.

[62] is a Scribd image of a letter of introduction: not a reliable source.

Maddox,Robert.” Preacher at the White House”. Nashville: Broadman Press,1984. This is a reference to a book which, according to Google Books, doesn't mention the subject.

Marquis Who's Who in the Midwest, 16th Edition, 1978-1979, p. 436. This a reference to a book which publishes vanity biographies. Not independent and not a reliable source.

[63] consists of 20 words about the subject in a university alumni magazine. Not significant coverage, and I very much doubt that the publisher actually does any fact-checking of such submissions.

Marquis Who's Who in the World, 25th Edition 2008. See above.

Three Million Gods. Youtube is not a reliable source, and no evidence has been provided that this has actually been broadcast anywhere.

The Nation , November 22, 2006, etc. This is presented in the article as a reference to the subject's own writings, not coverage of the subject.

None of these sources gets anywhere near meeting the notability requirement of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and no further sources have been offered either in the previous AfD discussion or here. I would also point out that I spent a couple of hours doing very thorough searches for online sources during the previous AfD, so will copy my findings here:

Searches combining the subject's name with every one of the potential claims of notability in the article find 66 web pages, none of which amount to significant independent coverage, no Google News hits, three irrelevant Google Scholar hits and these 10 Google Books hits, only one of which appears to be about the subject - this mention in the Christian Herald. Of course there may be significant coverage in offline sources, but I think that I've done a pretty exhaustive check of what is available online.

Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would not so quickly dismiss Marquis' Who's Who. It has "short biographies of influential persons" per Marquis Who's Who. "Individuals become eligible for listing by virtue of their positions and/or noteworthy achievements that have proved to be of significant value to society. An individual's desire to be listed is not sufficient reason for inclusion. Similarly, wealth or social position are not criteria. Purchase of the book is never a factor in the selection of biographees" per their stated policy. Appearance there is not enough, by itself to prove notability, but it does contribute to or support notability. Their screening may not be perfect, but I check it when considering whether a bio article is justified for someone. It is "reliable" at least as to the person's claimed achievements. Edison (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would recommend reading on to Marquis Who's Who#Selection process where we get some idea of what people other than the publishers themselves have written. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Page three of the New York Times article cited in Marquis Who's Who#Selection process is particularly relevant: "Those selected are sketched biographically, then contacted for additional information or asked to fill out a form. Finished entries are not uniformly fact-checked." That would seem to exclude it as a reliable source, which we require to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". And "The Hall of Lame" in Forbes lists various people with entries in the publication who can certainly not be regarded as notable by our standards. Unless we are to dismiss The New York Times and Forbes as reliable sources then we have to conclude that an entry in Marquis Who's Who provides no support for any claim of notability by Wikipedia's standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I nominated this originally, and nothing has changed since the first discussion. Also please consider the comments of NuclearWarfare, RL0919, DGG, Kevin, Stifle, Coffee, Blaxthos, several of whom endorsed the closure of the AfD, but agreed that the article probably deserved deletion. Ἀλήθεια 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly. Although I agree that there are too few articles on notable missionaries and clergy (especially those active after the publication of the 1911ish Catholic Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica), this individual simply doesn't meet the encyclopedia's notability requirements, especially in light of BLP. --NellieBly (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The reasons for an AfD were considered a few weeks ago, and there was no consensus. The first AfD discussions gave adequate arguments for keeping this article. There are very few articles specifically on missionaries, and this article has merits to stand alone. The same arguments in the first AfD discussions to delete are rehashed again. One might suspect that there might be other reasons for continuing to nominate this article for AfD. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you please identify which of the arguments that were made for keeping this have not been refuted? And please bear in mind that notability by Wikipedia's definition requires evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have resided where the subject serves as missionary, and have read many articles published in national newspapers. A criterium of notability has always been to have had one's writings published. Google is far from the reliable sourse you claim it to be. Further your repeated arguments fail to acknowledge that notability is subjective--not absolute as your suggest. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having ones writings published has never been a criterion for notability. What is needed is for someone else to write about the subject. I do not claim that Google is the be-all and end-all for finding sources, but nobody has listed any specific offline sources that provide independent significant coverage of the subject. If you know of any such sources, such as newspaper articles about Mr Maas (not by him) then please list them and we may be able to save this article from deletion, but we need specific information, such as author, publication, article title and date, rather than vague assertions that such sources exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC

I am somewhat confused and troubled by Phil Bridger's continued, rather lone, and unceasing efforts to delete an article that I am working on, and is a work in progress about a missionary who I feel deserves at least a small mention. After Mother Teresa, with whom he was a colleague and which photo is posted online, he is one of the most notable figures in India. He was awarded a citation for his pro-life efforts in India by the Missionaries of Charity, presented by Mother Teresa. The photo of her presenting this award is available online. Further, India has around 14 major languages, and most of the newspaper citations about his ministry are in Telegu, Marathi, and Hindu, and are not available on Google nor translated into English.

He is a noted convention speaker in India, and has appeared before crowds in excess of 50,000. I am in the process of acquiring these photos for publication, and am having further proof of his notability translated from India languages. According to Mr Bridger's personal standard, very few biographical articles on religious figures would remain. Many religious educators in WP have written books, but have not been independently recognized as per his standards.

I have observed that he has not contributed to this article, but that he and others who vote to delete seem to be unhappy with some of my edits on articles on religion. Is this vendetta against this article, and that of the others who vote to delete, in any way related to my edits? I hope not, as this is not in harmony with the high principles of Wikipedia. I appeal to the administrators to once again deny the aFd, and allow me to continue to add more notability to the article. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to discussion of the article and its subject, rather than make unfounded assumptions about my motives. The reason that I spent so much time looking for independent reliable sources (as documented above) is that I wanted to find some so as to be able to contribute to the article and rescue it from deletion by bringing it into conformance with our guidelines, not because I have some personal vendetta against the subject or you. The only reason that I have not contributed to the article is that I couldn't find any sources on the basis of which to do so. The requirement for such sources is not my personal standard, but Wikipedia's, documented in the notability guideline and the policies on verifiability and biographies of living people. Please note that I have not commented on any other articles that you have edited, and have in recent weeks defended articles on Christian topics [64][65][66], despite not being a Christian myself, so please don't imply that I am biased. You talk about "the high principles of Wikipedia": your implied accusations are totally in contradiction the the high principles that I would expect of a Master of Divinity. Once again, if you are really interested in the future of this article, provide some specific references to independent reliable sources that write about the subject, whether online or offline, and in any language. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Worldwide Faith Missions. I too would like articles on notable missionaries of the modern period. The article gives some strong hints he is not one of them: It calls him a theologian on the basis that he studied theology in graduate school--but he never published or taught theology except in one claimed book I cannot find mentioned anywhere including Worldcat or Google. It recounts that one of his cousins was notable. He visited Mother Teresa. The White House gave him a form letter. And he got one mention in the alumni yearbook, a two-sentence self-report not even in a separate paragraph. These are typical signs of an article about someone who is non-notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would be happy with a redirect if it could be shown that Worldwide Faith Missions was notable, but I can't see any evidence of that. I had been planning to wait for a month or two after the previous AfD to see if anyone could come up with any better sources and then, if that didn't happen, to nominate both articles together, but this nomination has rather pre-empted that plan. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His service as an advisor to the White House and years as serving as an international organization president alone show notability and deserve a place in Wikipedia. He was recognized by his alma mater (University of Pittsburgh) for his missionary service. These are all available for verification through Google. The last AfD got a mixed consensus. There are no new reasons to list this again as an Afd. Jackie-thai (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither being a White House advisor (which is unsourced anyway) nor being president of an organisation that operates in more than one country constitutes notability as defined by our guidelines, which is nothing to do with whether a subject "deserves" anything. And how was he "recognized by his alma mater"? All we have is a 20-word mention in an alumni magazine. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that Rak-Tai has asked above for extra time in which to get sources together for this article. I would have no objection to incubation to enable Rak-Tai and others to do this. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The following submission was listed in the first afD, and deserves consideration in this current afD:

Keep IMHO, the founder of such global humanitarian efforts as [[Worldwide Faith

Missions]] and Feed the Orphans (very similar in scope to Cross International) -- not

to mention the services rendered to our own government -- deserves a couple kilobytes of

server space in Wikipedia. JimScott (talk) 14:08,

23 October 2009 (UTC) R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a classic puff piece, devoid of proper sourcing, and with no particular claim of notability once the puffery is removed. Abductive (reasoning) 10:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns six results, none of which provide sufficient coverage about this missionary; most, if not all, of the sources appear to be about a different individual of the same name. Other searches for sources do not return reliable sources.
I concur with Phil Bridger's analysis of the sources above. Jackie-thai (talk · contribs)'s assertion that this individual is notable because "was recognized by his alma mater (University of Pittsburgh) for his missionary service" does not establish notability; a minor, non-notable award does not confer notability per WP:ANYBIO. Serving as an adviser to the White House also does not establish notability because the White House has many advisers; only advisers who have official positions or have had an impact of the administration are notable. Having a notable cousin and visiting Mother Theresa do not establish notability because notability is not inherited.
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, a biography of a living person sourced to only blogs, forums, and other unreliable sources should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criteria for inclusion are subjective, and my assessment of the biographies about seminary professors and religious leaders is that most would not pass the requirements interpreted in the negative remarks aleady stated. Having served, additionally to his ministry as organization president, as White House advisor (a letter from the White House is available online) should merit a developing inclusion, especially since there are precious few similar listings. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am asking for you to keep this biography, which I see as list for deletion. I am not an editor, but I am a student at Ramkhamhaeg U in BKK who uses Wikipedia. We were asked to write a paper about an America missionary working in Asia. I had heard about Johannes Maas and his missionary work in Thailand and India.; He had also tutored some of my friends in English, and google showed that he was listed to Wikipedia, which many of us students use in writing papers in English. It listed details about his life which were detailed enough for a term paper. This biography is important as a reference article for Asian students. Please keep this one and add others that we can use in our term papers. Thank you. Nusara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.176.210 (talk) 09:12, 19 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) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loiterers Resistance Movement[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable organization. The only reference I can find in a reliable source is an article in the New Statesman (link), which by itself is not sufficient to establish notability criteria. Suggest deletion per WP:ORG. Muchness (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable organization. No loitering, move along, move along. Mandsford (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Angryapathy (talk) 16:42, 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 keep. JForget 21:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snook (comedian)[edit]

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

Seem to far fall short of notability guidelines; relatively minor comedian with no significant claim to fame and article tagged since April 2008 with no significant improvement. A brief attempt to find online sources failed to ferret out anything of significance. — Coren ^(talk) 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has CD's and a DVD, has made national TV and radio appearances, appears fairly well known in Newfoundland as a regional comedian -Drdisque (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, those are all minor appearances, and the CD and DVD are self-published (at least, I couldn't find them available at retailers). He might indeed be hovering just at the edge of notability, but unless some independent sources can be found he's on the delete side of the egde. — Coren ^(talk) 11:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He does have some national recognition in Canada [67] and it's of interest that he [68]. Many a comedian offers a recording of the routines for fans, and many get an appearance on a television show, but the test of notability is whether his coverage is significant, no opinion from me on that one. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd initially been weak on this, thinking it was best to leave the article for the time being as Newfoundland is not exactly a large market to begin with. That was before I noticed the above link where it is confirmed he ran for office. I would say that considering WP:PAPER, Snook is notable withing a Newfoundland context and should remain - BalthCat (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, search by "Snook" comedian -baby, and there are enough sources. Abductive (reasoning) 10:56, 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. JForget 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPS Creator[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Another editor had nominated this for speey deletion, which I declined and added a prod tag for them. A quick rationale for deleting this article is "The article is about software that does not have any reliable sources to establish notability." NW (Talk) 17:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Game Creators - it is, at least, verifiable. (From Intel.com: [69]) Marasmusine (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this "nonnotable" software? It has a rather large user base (of around several thousand, including those who pirate it). The article just needs some serious revision. I'll get on that now, actually.The-sigmatic (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joe has linked to the guideline that explains exactly how this might be nonnotable software. Marasmusine (talk) 10:43, 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, Tim Song (talk) 01:33, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated, it does not matter how many people are pirating this software if we cannot drudge up examples of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. 5 days after The-sigmatic claimed to fix, still no 3rd party sources. Miami33139 (talk) 07:55, 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. Cirt (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Holiday[edit]

Delete Minor YouTube celebutante who came in third in a minor reality show. Seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 18:40, 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) 00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to be notable. JBsupreme (talk) 00:29, 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. Black Kite 12:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Brodhead (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB: The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic. The primary has a hatnote to the only other entry, so this page serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom GreyWyvern (talk) 17:13, 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) 00:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Orphaned and unneeded. Tassedethe (talk) 07:31, 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. JForget 21:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neang Neath[edit]

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

PROD was contested, no explanation was given. I will notify de-prodding editor. I brought the article here because WP:PROD says not to re-prod the article. My original reason was that it does not appear to pass WP:NFILM. Tim1357 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Weak Delete -- At this time, I would weakly support the deletion nomination due to there being no sources that demonstrate whether this film meets WP:NFILM. However, I wonder if this is a language bias, given that this film is a Cambodian film? There are a number of Google hits, even if you exclude WP mirrors. I don't think the hits meet WP:RS, but I think it is an indication that there might be other, reliable sources out there supporting notability. Singularity42 (talk) 18:41, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing to suggest that this meets WP:NFILM Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guideline for films. JBsupreme (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this should be directed to a SE Asia WikiProject for someone to confirm that this film is not notable. Maybe some of the above editors know Khmer, but I certainly do not. - BalthCat (talk) 07:13, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tarkhan clans[edit]

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

List of names: no indication of notability, no references and virtually no context. Were it not for the fact the article is long-standing I'd suggest this was speedily deletable (A1/A7). In addition, nothing else about the article seems to meet the definition of a list in the Wikipedia sense - in particular, it does not 'organise information' - none of the entries is a link (well, one is - but it links to a mirror of the same page) - it is literally just an alphabetically organised collection of names. I42 (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 00:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't been able to find sources for this, it's also difficult to even define if the list consists of clans or surnames. -SpacemanSpiff 17:30, 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) 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:47, 21 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) 10:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bed (book)[edit]

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

seemingly non notable with no RS to attest to notability Theserialcomma (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot see how this passes WP:BK. GreyWyvern^⚒ 22:44, 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) 00:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete author is marginally notable at best, his article doesnt show any sign of traditional notability, only fringe sources and small press publishers. this author really doesnt qualify for separate articles on his books. i would suggest that other titles be afd'd as well. my critique of the promotional nature of the authors article will be saved for its talk page, unless someone also nominates his article for deletion, which im neutral on.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly merge) - For the reasons detailed above, the books don't warrent separate articles. No third-party sources either to establish notability. Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isle (band)[edit]

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

Filing another broken AFD that was red-linked and nobody could be arsed to finish. Open your eyes; I'm not the only one who can fix these things. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC, no notable members, chart singles or sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd rather not start nominations added by other people. There is no reason for me to do so. I assume that others notice them, but are not interested. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's always somebody else's problem. Nice. Why don't you go dump something else in my lap? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to nominate it. Joe Chill (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:44, 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) 00:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirments. Not sourced and a google news and google source provide no coverage in reliable media sources. coeliacus. (talk.) 03:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Their EP was self-distributed, and their debut album appears to be distributed only in electronic form, from a label formed by one of the band members. (The article notes that both projects were self-financed by band members, rather than by the label.) A MySpace page and a link from a non-notable producer's personal website is not enough to establish notability under the General Notability Guideline, so we have to rely on WP:MUSIC, and Isle does not qualify. Additionally, the primary author of the article appears to be the former vocalist for the group, and the artist for the cover art on the second album, so there is a COI issue as well. Horologium (talk) 03:32, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Combat submission wrestling[edit]

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

No reliable sources listed, no assertion of notability. Procedural nomination: this article was PROD'ed for 7 days, but was also deleted via PROD in 2008, so is ineligible for deletion by PROD. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no reliable sources per nom. not sure if this is an advertisement or spam, but i don't think it's a legit, notable form of martial arts. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:10, 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) 00:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete I was unable to find any independent sources about this new art/style. It appears to be another example where someone combines techniques from a couple of styles and calls it a new art. Papaursa (talk) 01:32, 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. Including the nominator, there seems to be a consensus that the subject is not sufficiently notworthy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les McKeown (author)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, with little or no third party coverage that I can find. Another of the hundred thousand authors who write inspirational little books about becoming confident/organisational structure/other bollocks. Ironholds (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is an expert on a significant business issue, and his books offer relevant advice to businesspeople, not "inspiration". See this Google News archive search for a number of references. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" He is an expert on a significant business issue, and his books offer relevant advice to businesspeople" - wonderful guideline-based argument. Five brief mentions is not enough to pass WP:BIO; he's been consulted for soundbites, the articles aren't about him or covering him in any detail. Ironholds (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ironholds is right, none of the sources provided qualify as significant coverage and I can't find any anywhere. Fails WP:N Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:25, 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) 00:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Derosena[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO in referencing and WP:ENTERTAINER in notability. His single notable position so far is an extremely minor role in The Wire, and I can find no evidence that he passes the multiple, reliable, third-party etc standard set. Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only sources I could find on this person were explicit PR releases. Fails WP:N. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The source is IMDB. Yeah he worked on The Wire but he also worked on Dexter & Jimmy Kimmel Live & I 've also seen him in Commercials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.162.140 (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep-He also produces films and they were nominated in Los Angeles Film Festival. He's in a lot of Commercials —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianQv (talk • contribs) 17:51, 11 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) 00:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete no reliable sources establishing that the subject passes WP:ENT. Also, IMDB is not a reliable source. (Nor are press releases). Bfigura ^(talk) 03:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient notability is asserted in the current article. (Regardless of sourcing issues.) - BalthCat (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-IMDB is a reliable source. I work in Casting & that is the first thing we look at for any actor. That & IMDBPRO —Preceding unsigned comment added by HannaTeach (talk • contribs) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep-He's also a rapper. I saw him in concert in Crash Mansion. There are other Articles here that have way less noteriaty on & reliability —Preceding unsigned comment added by JennaDw (talk • contribs) 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. No evidence that the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria have been met. (Also note that all "keep" !votes are from single purpose accounts.) Dawn Bard (talk) 21:42, 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 redirect to Madventures. Edit history remains intact in case anyone wants to preform a merger –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuomas Milonoff[edit]

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

Delete. Yet another unsourced biographical article about a living person, as if we need more of these. I'm sure the show he is affiliated with is notable, but even so notability is not inherited and this specific subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create Redirect to Madventures: There are a few press hits to this guy (mostly not in English), but almost all seem to be about this show. Article can be recreated in the future if needed.--Milowent (talk) 20:11, 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) 00:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The article is a stub anyway and any information not currently in Madventures can be merged easily. - BalthCat (talk) 07:35, 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. Unsourced, claims no notability, even the source found by Sckessey is just a passing mention - and even that source says it's a "lesser known distro". Black Kite 10:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROCK Linux[edit]

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

Clearly an advertisement. The Zwinky (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I immediately found evidence of reliable sources when I searched the Google News archives (example). This might be a candidate for being rescued. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This CNN link is three sentences. I am yawning. Since when did three sentences on a news site justify an encyclopedia article? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I find this notable because ROCK was one of the earliest "make your own distro" systems, which I was made aware of via print media. This, or a number of committers that contribute these ideas to other projects (Debian, Fedora) would seem to satisfy the notability criteria. rhyre (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - A brief mention doesn't make it notable, and the language of the article is more akin to a pitch than an encyclopedia.The Zwinky (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unexceptional, go away. Delete this stuff. We do not need articles on every single distro kit, even if it gets references, why is the subject important? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suffer Tour[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No substantial media coverage. No claim of notability. No reason why this is any more notable than any other concert tour. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information (ie, tour dates) WP:INFO. Save this for the fan sites Nouse4aname (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following articles for the same reasons

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but give creator a few days to copy to a fan wiki. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-06t12:10z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger Than Fiction Tour[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No substantial media coverage. No claim of notability. No reason why this is any more notable than any other concert tour. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information (ie, tour dates) WP:INFO. Save this for the fan sites Nouse4aname (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the articles below for the same reasosns:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but give creator a few days to copy to a fan wiki. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-06t12:09z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no indication subject is notable Hoogiman (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Is there an artist concert tour site we can merge this into? I think lists of concerts from bands that are notable for touring (this one qualifies) should have articles. But alone thiy may not. Shadowjams (talk) 12:41, 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. With no objection to a sourced recreation. Sandstein 07:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rooftop housing[edit]

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

problematic article. unsourced stub since 2006. Seems to be just a WP:DICDEF Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom GreyWyvern (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There would appear to be plenty of reliable sources amongst these 430 books, these 1,260 academic papers and these 215 news articles. I don't have time to look through them right now, but maybe someone would care to check them out? "Rooftop squatter" would appear to be the most commonly used term to describe this phenomenon in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:46, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<stirke>Delete Neutral - Generic incident of living, perhaps mentioned, but not itself notable. Shadowjams (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support keeping it if that term applies to a broad phenomenon or living arrangement, and not just something that exists in Hong Kong. I don't think there's any demonstration of notability if it's the second, but likely is if it's the first. Shadowjams (talk) 00:51, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Tour[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No substantial media coverage. No claim of notability. No reason why this is any more notable than any other concert tour. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information (ie, tour dates) WP:INFO. Save this for the fan sites Nouse4aname (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but give creator a few days to copy to a fan wiki. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-06t12:06z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 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 redirect to Mary Kay Letourneau. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vili Fualaau[edit]

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

Young lad who ejaculated several times between his teacher's willing legs, and later married her, nothing more. RCS (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable individual, non-notable events. Violates WP:NOT#NEWS. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:29, 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) 00:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many reliable sources covered this person over a several year period. If he is not notable, the UN Secretary General is also not notable. Neither is the Prime Minister of Canada. Conmatrix (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any sourced content to main article. im partial to articles about people in the news, but in this case SHE is notable for breaking the law and getting lots of attention, while he is notable for...being a horny boy? nothing afterwards indicates notability for him, though he did get attention.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes being a horny boy less notable than being a criminal except how much coverage the act gets? If their coverage is identical, they are identically notable. Our disdain for pubescent boys is not really grounds for dismissing him. Weak keep in that it appears that his notability is enduring. If nothing else, move to BLP1E title. - BalthCat (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge/redirect The story was huge during that time, so the information is notable, so I suggest merge it with the teacher's article. Angryapathy (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only content in this article that isn't already covered in the Mary Kay Letourneau article are his birth date, ethnicity, an uncited claim about them being caught in a car (which I deleted as a BLP violation), his 2006 drunk driving conviction, and his career aspirations. None of these make him independently notable from Letourneau or the event. Redirect to Letourneau article. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mary Kay Letourneau. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a separate person from Mary Kay Letourneau, and so should be kept as a separate article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.81.195 (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC) — 98.234.81.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Just because he's a separate person doesn't mean he meets WP:N. See also WP:ENN. Since my last post to this discussion I came upon WP:VICTIM (as much as I hate to admit it, legally this individual was the "victim"), which states in part, "a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission." Outside of his relationship with Letourneau, Fualaau has done nothing to make himself independently notable by Wikipedia guidelines. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:00, 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) 10:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Party of Canada[edit]

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

AFD was requested by IP, I'm submitting it in good faith for them. tedder (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This "Unity Party of Canada" was never a registered political party with a certifiable level of support during the entirety of its three year existence. Not only that it is highly unlikely that sources will or can be used for the article as the Unity Party was never a serious political party. I do not believe it is worthy of an encyclopedia article. Following the link on the "way back machine" it is obvious that it was nothing more than an online discussion forum, never frequented by more than a dozen users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.55.244 (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC) tedder (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This party never registered or actually engaged to run candidates. The press has take no notice of the party. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 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) 00:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article says it all "At its height in 2001, the Unity Party had no more than 20 members". Nothing more than trivial mentions and [[WP:MIRROR. J04n(talk page) 04:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it gets kept, that unsourced bit about them "drifting" to other parties has got to go. The NDP is not, to my knowledge, seen as particularly nationalist. - BalthCat (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The party and its website are hoaxes: "Democracy is for people who don't trust each other". Worth reading for the humor, though. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:55, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Eurythmy School[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable school. Article appears to lack adequate support, GHits of substance, and has only one news article that is essentially a announcement of a performance by school. ttonyb (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has more than one sourced references. The American Eurythmy School is the second largest 4-year eurythmy training in North America, after Eurythmy Spring Valley. It has been in existence for 25 years and has numerous graduates of its program who are teaching in various Waldorf schools in the U.S. and Canada, and performing. Therefore it is notable.

Unfortunately the school also apparently shuns publicity: it has no web site and appears to recruit students solely by word of mouth. It also shuns association with the established pedagogical hierarchy at the Goetheanum and thus is rarely included in reports of worldwide eurythmy trainings or on other web sites. So demonstrating and documenting its notability is tricky: there is mention of the School here and there in news articles of performances by the School's eurythmists and there are quite a few mentions in listings of Waldorf faculty that a particular eurythmy teacher or other teacher received his/her training at the American Eurythmy School.

I don't think the lack of "hard" documentation diminishes the school's notability, however, and so I vote keep. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:53, 11 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) 00:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while eurythmy is barely known in US, it and its parent orgs, waldorf, anthroposophy, are a really big deal and part of germanys history and the history of alternative education in the west. i would keep articles on the top schools related to this movement, as long as at least one source can be found indicating the relative importance WITHIN this movement.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:42, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aylesbury Youth Action[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) 18:47, 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) 00:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails criteria at WP:ORG and I couldn't find significant coverage of it. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 01:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 01:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minimal trivial coverage. Sorry kids. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere, possibly to Queens Park Centre, from which it operates. That article is at present a poor stub. This is often the best solution with local facilities, such as churches, primary schools; this comes inot the same league. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notte senza luna[edit]

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

Non-notable single. Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. I've also listed those related articles for the same reason:

Mi scusi, signorina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sì (Carmen Russo song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mai, Mai, Mai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Camomillati Venerdì (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bravi, Settepiù (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Io Jane tu Tarzan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kekkomereq4 (talk • contribs) 13 November 2009

Note: I have refactored the original nomination, replacing the plain wikilinks with the la template. Also, Step 1 of WP:BUNDLE was not completed correctly on the "related" pages. It has been fixed. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all per WP:CSD#G7: Author and only contributor of content has explicitly requested deletion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:57, 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.