The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yii Framework[edit]

Yii Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No improvement on notability since last nomination. Similar article was deleted in ruwiki for the same reason as repeated spam. Peni (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Plenty of ghits, unfortunately they are all to blogs and forums. Incidentally, one of the redirect targets suggested in the first AfD has since been deleted itself. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. May be a fine tool but not notable and certainly no better supported than the previous delete. NTK (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G11 applies here too. NW (Talk) 17:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano b gallo[edit]

Cristiano b gallo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non-notable individual. I can find no coverage of "Cristiano Buonarroti Gallo", and none of "Cristiano B Gallo" outside forums and facebook. Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability is questionable. Looks more like an advertisement, a promotion by his friend R. Duval "I have known Cristo for many years and can verify that he is an International photographer. Rene Duval. Photographer." Who is he to certify that he is notable. No third party sources or references. Conflict of interest. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 00:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Not only is notabililty in question, the article is just an attempt at promotion (especially the second paragraph), and (one of) the author(s) appear(s) to have a Conflict of interest, referring to himself directly in the article. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 as nothing but a promotional page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cristianobuonarrotigallo.webs.com genuine person. GREAT photographer. Please dont be so short sighted!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.41.108 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What we meant is not just having an official website in order to be notable. Again, this website is a personal website, created by the photographer himself; we cannot consider this as a reliable source. You need to provide 3rd party sources/references. If you say that he is such a great photagrapher, than you should not have any problem in finding some on Goggle, for example. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 00:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Having been invited (above) to look at his website, I did just that. Even if it were a reliable source (and it isn't), it contains no evidence of notability -- just five very conventional photographs, and some boasting. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not know whether the subject is notable, but in this case the article fails even to assert notability. Someone who photographs rich and famous people…So? Somone who might or might not have an exhibition in the UK sometime soon…So? Ian Spackman (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisation of alternative ICE fuels[edit]

Comparisation of alternative ICE fuels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Duplication of part of Internal combustion engine. Few Sources, poor grammar, poorly organized Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't look like a duplicate to me, looks like original, poor research. NTK (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-I agree with NTK. As it is written, the entire basis for the article (comparison) is WP:SYNTHESIS. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator's contributions reveal him to be a sockpuppet and a trolling only account. Triplestop x3 23:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Puffs[edit]

Sugar Puffs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article mostly lacks in references and seems to look like an advertisement.

• Keep - obviously notable product, page might need a bit of a tidy up --  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Then it should be tagged for clean-up, not delete. _Met^ty 23:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kevin Trudeau Show[edit]

The Kevin Trudeau Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A PROD tag was removed without apparent improvement, and the article's creator (and tag's remover) has the same title as the website associated with this programme, indicating conflict of interest. There are no reliable sources to denote any notability -- a Google search reveals large amounts of self-promotion but nothing in the way of objective assessment that I could locate. There are some impressive claims of circulation for a self-published book by the show's host, but that doesn't especially contribute to any notability for this programme. The book itself would probably fall under our fringe theory policy. In addition, I found suggestions that the individual at the centre of all this has been indicted for fraud; that may or may not be the case, but I urge everyone commenting to be sure of the accuracy of their sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Simply a non-notable Internet talk show with an extreme WP:COI. All of Kevin Trudeau's various projects (and dodging of FTC regulations against him, which is likely one of the few reasons this internet show even exists) are detailed in his own BLP article so there's no need for any merges. Nate • (chatter) 01:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this vote I have found out it does air on radio, but only a few small radio stations which specialize in brokered programming (as in Trudeau pays to put it on). Jango1077 has taken to the Trudeau article to add a promotional POV about the show despite my attempts to maintain NPOV, Nate • (chatter) 05:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One big advertisement about a non-notable show, and COI is an understatement. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have to disagree. How is this wikipedia page "one big advertisement" when it contains factual information? Who decides what is "notable" or "non-notable"? Are you sure that your personal opinions of Kevin Trudeau are not clouding your judgment on whether a syndicated radio show by a best selling author is worthy of a wikipedia page? Jango1077 —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• • Comment Absolutely sure, thanks; I have no personal opinion about Mr. Trudeau whatsoever, and have apparently understated the suggestions of conflict of interest, according to another editor expressing himself above. Besides, we're not talking about him personally, we're talking about a radio show. As far as "who decides what is notable or non-notable", those are community standards that have been established by the efforts of a large group of editors over a period of about five years; you can find notability standards at this link, to start with. If you have further questions about the basic nature of Wikipedia articles, you can start by looking at WP:Your first article and WP:Why was my article deleted? Accounting4Taste:talk 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I reviewed your articles, thanks. Since Kevin has had very high profile guests on his show and he's quite famous due to his best selling books, the show is notable and therefore deserves it's own page. Is there a problem with stating factual data so people can find more information on this show? The show is similar to the show Alex Jones broadcasts and yet that show has it's own page. Jango1077'
    • Not necessarily. Having notable guests on his show doesn't automatically make him notable. Please read WP:INHERITED. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While you're at it, given your Alex Jones argument, also read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black mass (paranormal entity)[edit]

Black mass (paranormal entity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

According to the article, this is some kind of "entity" that is "debated within paranormal circles", however the sources are TV shows and Ghost enthusiast web sites. Fails WP:N, no WP:RS reliable sources found for this term. No reliable sources found to verify notability. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Originally proposed a merge but a deletion would be better. Not notable.Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning toward keep by default per "non-notable" not being a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the fact that that link leads to an essay which enjoys limited support, the link says that stating "not notable" and absolutely nothing else is a poor reason for deletion. It does not, despite your many attempts to make out otherwise, say that "any argument that uses the words 'not' and 'notable' together is invalid". Stifle (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Notability" has even less support. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:PERNOM. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...which, at the top of the page, 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". Perhaps you've referred so many people to it that you've forgotten its actual meaning? Stifle (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case it is to an account who admittedly indiscriminately says to delete everything and is closed minded to the point of never argueing to keep (yes, I typically argue to keep, but I have argued and even nominated dozens of articles for deletion). In this case, it really is a matter of just saying "per nom" for the sake of getting in another delete vote rather than actual argument. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps this should be relisted to generate more discussion... embarassed but I don't know how to do that.Simonm223 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If, after a week, an administrator determines that the discussion has been insufficient, they will relist it at that stage. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article show little content and a lot of fluff, it misses something with encyclopaedic value (e.g. defintion). I am not convinced this article is about a paranormal entity, looks like an abstract concept used in fiction and story telling (something dark representing the evil or unknown). 83.254.210.47 (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Two of the four references appear to be fiction and two appear to be claims of sightings of the phenomenon. Here is a photo of a black mass. :p Simonm223 (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exoskeletal engine[edit]

Exoskeletal engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is about an apparently technically flawed style of jet engine that 'might work in 20 years' (which if I break the tech-speak code means 'we can't make it work'), unlike the wide variety of jet engines that do actually work. Article topic seems to be a non notable. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep, possible namechange to Exoskeletal engine research, per Cancer research, Genome research, etc. The article is ill defined as an object that does not yet exist; the theory itself is an entity, in the same way that the Theory of gravity is, let alone the research into the subject. Anarchangel (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSeems to be a real concept being taken by credible researchers, but I'm not sure how much discussion there is of the concept outside of NASA (which would confirm notability)Nigel Ish (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only get 65 hits in google, and the hits I get in google seem to be almost exclusively primary sources, and the other hits, I wouldn't call them substantial coverage at all. It's not like we're knee-deep in secondary source mentions of it, they're all very superficial.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. "It doesn't work yet" is not a good reason to delete. Otherwise, we may as well blank all the pages about hypothetical spacecraft propulsion, concept aircraft, any technology not already in mass production really. Seriously what's the point? Why not delete the Deadalus Drive page then, that hasn't gotten off the ground either. Keep it.

It's not really about that. Project Daedalus was written about in a WP:RELIABLE secondary source, and searching google[1] gives 6,500 hits. None of this has been described in secondary sources, and we get only 65 hits in google. The papers I looked at suggested that the whole idea seems to have some fundamental problems (mainly in the bearings, which isn't surprising IMO given the geometry, but whatever). In the absence of a secondary source describing this topic, the wikipedia should not have this article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yeah but that's not what you said. And anyway, the point is that this is no less realistically possible than the Deadalus Drive or Valkyrie spaceship or whatever. I still see no reason we should delete it. At worst move it to an article focusing on research for it, maybe. But really, counting google hits doesn't make it any more or less probable or possible or technically sound--I can find a hella lot of google hits for the TimeCube and Banzai Kittens too. Probably ten times as many as Deadalus, IF for some reason we needed to troll the net for that crap.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bonsai kitten and Time Cube are both considered notable, and are helped in that by having lots of google hits, other websites clearly consider them notable. This has almost none. That's not a good sign.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Non notable and technically flawed; a bit like the opinion of Whittle's ideas given by "experts" of the day in 1929/30. The sources noted (in 2005/6) that a suitable bearing system needs to be developed which could take some time; however, the 20-year figure quoted in the source is speculative – none of us has a crystal ball. Engineers and designers have always had to overcome technical challenges to make new ideas work, but that doesn't mean that they're technically flawed, and simply because today's technology hasn't yet been able to provide a solution (AFAIK) it doesn't follow that one will not be found. I was going to vote Keep, but IMHO Anarchangel's suggestion to move it to something like Exoskeletal engine concept is a better idea. --Red Sunset 08:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vote is about whether it is notable or not. It's wp:notable if it has substantial coverage, particularly in secondary sources. It doesn't though, and hence is ineligible for inclusion here. If they actually got it to work, that would doubtless change, people would talk about it more, and it would become notable. IMO it's clearly not, right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article desperately needs some technical diagrams for a better appreciation of the concept. --Red Sunset 08:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has value in its basic principles. It needs technical diagrams. Rosser Gruffydd 21:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Completely redundant to what is currently in Filter (band)#New Untitled Record with the exception of the unsourced quote from Patrick. A merge or redirect would not make any sense here. MuZemike 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Fifth Album[edit]

Untitled Fifth Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:HAMMER. No confirmed release date or track list, no sources of any kind Wolfer68 (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For the love of all that has been hammered into oblivion...fails WP:NALBUMS. No confirmed tracklisting, release date, name. No coverage as well. talkingbirds 22:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete. Although I did find a source for the quote, the article as a whole fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt so this title can never be used again. Hammeriffic and crystal, and the usual 'it may come out' quote that's already out of date. Nate • (chatter) 01:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete by any means possible. Don't see what good salting will do since there are infinite variations on these things and who knows, maybe there will be an Untitled Fifth Album some day. NTK (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evidence of notability, self-promotion, sockpuppetry. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REISSER-CYCLE[edit]

REISSER-CYCLE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A new design of internal combustion engine being shamelessly promoted by its designers. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged speedy G11. The parts that are worth keeping duplicate Four-stroke engine. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11, per Blanchardb. WuhWuzDat 22:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deleting for the third time. I now have a sockpuppet with no other edits screaming bloody murder on my talk page. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 15:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tubefilter[edit]

Tubefilter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

All sources except the streamy's.org (which is a press release) are one off mentions. No significant coverage. So fails WP:N+WP:WEB+WP:COMPANY. Otterathome (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Don't you ever learn? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Tubefilter is the leading source for web series news. I'm not sure how this doesn't qualify for WP:NOTABILITY. But, in any case, you didn't even put a notability tag on the page or make a good faith effort to give editors a chance to improve the article. Billbowery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a very bold statement saying that a website is a leading source of something, so an independent source saying so would be needed to back that claim up. None of the independent sources currently in the article seem to. I'm sure if it was the leading website in something there would be significant coverage on the website. And I didn't tag the page as looking at the quality of the article and number of sources, it seems likely that if there was any significant coverage, it would have already been added to the article.--Otterathome (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: Otterathome's nominations in the webseries field are proven to be in bad faith. See the two nominations done for lg15:the last and two nominations done for Jackson Davis (kept), as well as Mesh Flinders (kept), Vincent Caso (kept), etc. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LG15:_The_Last_(2nd_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jackson_Davis_(3rd_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mesh_Flinders, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Otterathome.2C_User:80.171.27.157.2F80.171.27.157.2C_and_User:Mathieas and on and on, topic ban idea has been raised for him/her by other editors. On the merits of the AfD (of which there are none), tubefilter is recognized as a leading source of new in the webseries field.--Milowent (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: So you admit that you have not made a good-faith effort to follow WP:FAILN here? In that case, I think you should withdraw your nomination and this article should be speedy kept. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  A good faith effort has already appeared to have been made by the authors of the article as shown by the large amount of one-off mentions in attempt to show it is notable, also see WP:BURDEN.--Otterathome (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BURDEN is about adding information to a page that is likely to be challenged. Not to deleting pages. Regardless, as the one adding the AFD tag to a page, you have to show that it does not and cannot meet WP:N which you clearly have not done so if you have not followed WP:FAILN. Therefore, this nomination is invalid and the article should be speedy kept. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh what? Did you read "All sources except the streamy's.org (which is a press release) are one off mentions. No significant coverage. So fails WP:N+WP:WEB+WP:COMPANY." at the top? And the burden still relies on authors of entire articles to show they are notable. Why do you keep repeating 'speedy keep' instead of trying to show how it passes our guidelines? It's getting old.--Otterathome (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You cannot prove it does not meet WP:N if you have not followed WP:FAILN. Therefore this article FAILS WP:DEL and is an invalid nomination. Therefore, I have every right to argue for speedy keep. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that is a legitimate speedy keep reason. But if you want to be satisfied: no significant coverage within in the last month, and still none before then. Instead of putting the burden on me, please address the notability issues yourself.--Otterathome (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAILN does NOT change WP:BURDEN, it does NOT state that you have to go find sources for them, Otter. It states that Deletion is a last resort and that beforehand, a good faith effort should be made to determine if the problem is lack of sources to cite(and therefore notability), or lack of citations of available sources(and therefore it's just a poorly written article). It contains a list of things that it suggests doing as part of that effort: looking for sources yourself is one possibility. The others are things like putting up notability tags, leaving messages on talk pages, contacting editors interested in the subject to tell them that there is a problem... In short, making the people that WP:BURDEN falls upon aware that there's an issue and giving them a chance to correct it. If this effort fails to improve the sourcing after a reasonable period of time, THEN you start considering merging it into another article or deleting it. In all cases this requires working with other editors to establish a consensus among them, and not just trying to impose your personal opinion upon them. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article not having any substantial coverage thus failing WP:N+WP:WEB+WP:COMPANY isn't a personal opinion, it's fact.--Otterathome (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I did a cursory look through Wikipedia and found several news or information sites (version tracker for instance), which I think are far less notable and influential, not to mention less sourced, that have entries. I think this is a valid method of gauging inclusion. Tubefilter is one of the 3 (I would argue 4) best sources for information about web video, not to mention one of the most influential. Mathieas (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument. If it's one of 'the best' and 'most influential', you'd need a reliable source to back it up. Otherwise it's just your personal opinion (WP:ILIKEIT).--Otterathome (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think in this situation WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is potentially quite relevant, as "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."--Milowent (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK #1 (nomination withdrawn with no "delete" opinions recorded). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Chess Club[edit]

Dallas Chess Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable local club. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. References are to primary sources or blogs. RadioFan (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - where are we going on Wikipedia? Here we have an article with some potential created by a new editor and with a whole load more sources than many/most first time pages and instead of guiding the creator we hit him with a Prod followed by an AfD within the first day. Sure it needs better sourcing but a little research shows many are available and for the USCF to say that "the Dallas Chess Club is one of the most active chess clubs in the United States" is an assessment that indicates notability. Also, how many organisations have a 12 year on its board of directors? This is not a local chess club but a large and important one within its field. TerriersFan (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Give it some time. It is pretty good for an article's first day. Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A look at Google News [2] shows that the club has received newspaper coverage even though the articles are too old for free access. In addition, at least one smaller chess club (the Oslo Chess Club) has an entry in a paper encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn - while the references in the article still need work, its clear that 3rd party sources are available to help this article meet WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methuselarity[edit]

Methuselarity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The latest blatantly non-notable neolgism to get an entry. Coined today(!). A speedy for this category would be great. Prod & Prod2 declined. Hairhorn (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms, WP:NAD and WP:NFT. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence that the concept is the subject of reliable sources, let alone the term. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete because, as Hairhorn pointed out, the term was apparently created today. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms Billbowery (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, only citation indicates it is a brand-new single-source neologism. NTK (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Neologism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been begging for a speedy delete category for neolgisms, but there isn't one.... Hairhorn (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"No indication that it meets the guidelines for inclusion". Or Wikipedia:WINAD. Alternatively: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is a speedy - the first describes A7, but that only applies to people, animals, organizations, not words; and WP:WINAD is part of WP:NOT and is #1 in the list of WP:CSD#Non-criteria, where "neologisms" is explicitly #4. I have made this proposal twice (actually, I proposed that things blatantly made up one day should be speediable), but it never gets anywhere - people say that nonsense words can be dealt with by G3 (vandalism/misinformation), but I feel that's only appropriate where there is malice or intent to deceive, not where somebody has made up a word he thinks is useful (or funny) and wants to share it with the world. I'm afraid we're stuck with PROD/AfD. JohnCD (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summability criterion[edit]

Summability criterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete per this discussion and per WP:G4. The current article is almost identical to the deleted article. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, rehash of the old deletion. NTK (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional approval voting[edit]

Proportional approval voting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete per this discussion. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material. If this can't be speedied – Delete; non-notable voting method (lacking mention in several independent reliable sources).  --Lambiam 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean WP:G4? As I'm not an administrator, I can't tell whether it's the same as the previously deleted material, but if it is, it can be tagged as such... Cheers, I'^mperator 00:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Judging by mirrors the article appears to be very different from the previous version and has a different source, so I removed my speedy designation. On the other hand it was recreated by a banned suspected sock puppet. NTK (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems pretty clear here although its the content that seems to the issue not the subject so I'll state specifically that there is no objection to someone writing a properly sourced article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemics of Divine Reality[edit]

Epistemics of Divine Reality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article contains one paragraph of OR and a lot of essay-writing. The term "Epistemics of Divine Reality" isn't even attested: see, for instance, this search. The one name produced by this search is also the name found in all the external links and other contributions added to various articles (Epistemics, Revelations, Rationalism, Epistle to the Hebrews) by the author and main contributor to this article, and I have a strong suspicion that this is not a coincidence (see below on user/creater and the redirect).

A closer look at this current article reveals that most of it is a rather haphazard collection of essay-like summaries of different epistemological position culminating in a decidedly unencyclopedic set of questions: "Are there two different methodologies of researching: the scientific, for the material world and the theological, for the spiritual world? Or there is just one. That is a question which must be answered by the Epistemics of Divine Reality." Perhaps--but such an epistemics only exists in the self-published works (e-book, websites, booklets) of Domenic Marbaniang. I have refrained from gutting the article, though that would be no more than proper; it would leave only the first paragraph and the last part of the last paragraph.

The article has been nominated for deletion before, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemics of Divine Reality. The outcome I believe to have been flawed in the sense that no better article ever came out of it--and this suggests to me the non-notability of the term. The article was trimmed down to this, which is nothing more than an explanation of what the term might mean, but it is still not a notable term. I don't want to pick apart every single keep-argument, but one was by an SPA (its only edit), another was by User:Rdsmarb, the WP name of Marbaniang, which now redirects to User:Platonic Guardian--the user who is responsible for the article in its current form. I do note that all the keeps express doubt as to whether this should stand alone or redirect to Existence of God (this includes User:DGG and User:Colonel Warden); I would suggest that a redirect is the highest this article could attain. However, in my opinion this article is OR and unrelated summary, and the term as such does not exist--this is why I advocate deletion rather than some sort of merge. I apologize for the lenght of this nomination and would ask editors to carefully cut through the non-relevant parts of the article. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If someone wants to add the references given to various other articles on religion and epistomology, great. this is to my reading overwhelmingly original research. i cannot imagine encyclopedia britannica publishing this, and if it was an accepted phrase with common use, it would undoubtedly be published there, unlike many trivial subjects that EB would not publish that we would allow. However, as the first poster (not intentional), i am interested in arguments either way. I generally dont see value in articles on religion written assuming that the religious perspective is inherently true, sort of like in-universe articles on fictional characters. from the WP point of view, God/divine reality may be seen as a fictional character or abstract idea that is widely believed to be real, and articles need to reflect that NPOV.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religion is a very real subject on inquiry, and treating it as fiction is extreme POV. An article on a religious topic needs to assume it true for the purposes of discussion, just as an article on any theory does. That is not in-universe, just clarity. We ought not append to every religious article a paragraph saying that God may not exist after all, just as we ought not add to every article on the material world that it may be an illusion after all. For articles discussing the question of the existence of God or of the material world, that's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From God: "God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe." This is what i mean. it doesnt say, for example, "god is the creator of the universe". we dont say "god doesnt exist" or assume god does exist. we write an article about god. i didnt say to write as if all religion was fiction. i meant to say we dont assume a particular religious perspective is true. anyway, truth is not the goal, but verifiability and notability. and we WILL have sourced statements in many articles on religion showing controversies or heresies both from outside and within the religion, if the issue is big enough to get commentary.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I checked some of the sources a little more carefully this time--I apologize for my earlier hasty reading. I observe that the article did not actually give specific sources in the usual way, referring instead to online essays or reprinted versions--I fixed the first, but stopped there, as it appeared needless to continue. Such a method of citation does not give any great confidence in the quality of the work. Goldstein's theory of Epistemics is a significant philosophical theory, with many Google Scholar references. A clear presentation of it and related theories can be found in his authoritative article "Social Epistemology" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [3] Unfortunately, what he discusses is not what the present article discusses, and the extension to inquiry into the nature of God appears to be entirely the unsourced OR of the author here. I see no reason to redirect. This has no particular relation to any of the actual theories being discussed, and is no more a topic in religion than it is in philosophy. A redirect would be according undue weight to pure OR and SYNTHESIS, one based apparently on unsophisticated use of the sources. A search needs to be made for traces of this OR in our related articles. I do not think that EB is our standard--we include what it does, but we go much further--and on traditional topics, studies have shown it not to be significantly more accurate than Wikipedia. The reason this article is inappropriate is that it is discussed by nobody outside Wikipedia at all. Let it actually be published, and let philosophers comment on it, and only then will it be notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing the OR. For the most part the article leads us through the views of notable philosophers on the matter. The approach seems quite respectable. It just seems that the treatment lacks polish, as is often the case with novice editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In browsing the sources, it is interesting that I arrived at a similar place to DGG - see The Epistemology of Religion - another article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The only problem with the article which we discuss is that it uses the unusual term epistemics for no clear reason. If we consider a better title such as Epistemology of Religion (a stub created by the same editor), then there are hundreds of respectable academic sources which discuss the matter, such as the one I cite. The matter is thus highly notable and deletion is therefore inappropriate as a way of developing this content, per our editing policy. A more sensible way forward might be to merge the current content into Epistemology of Religion and then generalise the topic by reference to these numerous sources. Another possible merge target is Philosophy of religion. Again this covers similar ground under a better title but is poorly sourced and so might benefit from the merger with this article, which contains numerous inline citations. The whole topic area seems to need a good clean up but that's not what AFD is for. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It not only uses the word "epistemics," possibly a notable topic though underdeveloped in its current state, but also "Divine reality"--which is really a far cry from "religion" and sounds more like a Mahavishnu Orchestra album (which I'd love to have, if it exists) than a philosophical topic. And I won't deny that I also object to an article, a title, and a redirect that lend legitimacy to a set of highly questionable articles--an article, a title, and a redirect that consist of a phrase which is meaningless and unattested in any reliable source. This is not to deny the validity of a large part of your argument, Colonel; what I'm saying, I guess, is it doesn't pertain to the pseudo-philosophy suggested by the phrase "Epistemics of Divine Reality". Drmies (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Epistemics has a 1000 Google Scholar hits (the max one is allowed to view). Therefore, I think that this argument, where we try to divine the intent of the author of this essay, isn't going in the correct direction. Abductive (reasoning) 01:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is about "Epistemics of Divine Reality", not about "Epistemics." Who said anything about intent? Drmies (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What you seem to be saying is that you don't like it but this is a weak argument for deletion. If you don't like material of this sort then a better approach is to improve it. Changing the title may be done by moving the article or merger. Improving the content is performed by normal content editing. Deletion seems quite unhelpful in that it would not only destroy a significant body of work which includes many sources but it would also alienate and drive off an editor who seems willing to work in this area and has give us good food for thought and further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that is not what I am saying at all--invoking IDONTLIKEIT is a way around the argument, and I would remind you that that cuts both was. To say that my objection is the same as a dislike is dismissing all argument as a matter of taste. I do admit that I don't like non-notable material in articles with made-up titles that attempt to mask their lack of content by adding statements made about God by famous philosophers. There is no significant body of work here. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My main reason for agreeing that this impressive looking article is original research is the fact that it contains passages that make little sense. For example:
  
  Polytheism is an example of pluralistic epistemology which doesn't allow rationalization of experience but accepts plurality of being as given in sense data as the only reality.
  
  Polytheism is the belief in multiple deities. This unreferenced statement doesn't explain well why the author even thought that polytheism contains an epistemology, much less why polytheism "doesn't allow rationalization of experience". These non-sequitur sentences seem to indicate that this text is someone's original musings. The epistemology of religion surely is a valid subject; but I'm not sure this is helping all that much. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is easy to nitpick and criticise the work of others but this is not the proper purpose of AFD. The question before us is whether this entire article is an utterly hopeless case and so should be completely deleted. This is a severe test and picking holes in particular passages is insufficient for this as they may be improved by ordinary editing. When I find a moment, I shall work upon the article to show how it may be improved by such normal editing means. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a textbook example of unsupported original research and essay writing. It is unreferenced by anything that would establish notability and completely unencyclopedic in content and in writing style. Someone should nominate Epistemics too, on the same grounds, but this one is even more clear-cut. NTK (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only real source is an self-published book which can be seen here. Mangoe (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Colonel W decided to move the page to "Epistemology of religion". Since significant moves during an afd discussion are discouraged, and there does not appear to be any clear consensus yet for this one, I moved it back, without prejudice one way or another to what the community may decide here. I left the redirect under the name he used--that can be dealt with later. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Anything that could live under this title would be best discussed in the article Existence of God which already exists (as far as we can know that anything "exists").  pablo_hablo. 21:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As I say above, we can't even figure out what the author is trying to say. It is not our duty to say every essay from deletion by completely rewriting it. Those that do want to completely rewrite it can do it by themselves, without any input from this essay. Abductive (reasoning) 21:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no great difficulty understanding it. For example, the first section on Monist epistemologies presents an Indian perspective on idealism - the concept that, because our senses are unreliable, we can only truly know the world of thought and ideas. Many philosophers have started from a similar premise, e.g. Descartes' famous Cogito ergo sum. Descartes went on to develop a proof of God and that's the general topic here - philosophical ways of thinking about the fundamentals of God and religion. The main difficulty when working in this area is that there is a huge quantity of philosophical writings upon the topic. I find it easier to develop an existing draft than to start from nothing. The previous author(s) have provided links and references of which I was unaware and I do my bit by my making my own contribution. This process of incremental development is our explicit policy. It is quite definitely not our policy to delete early drafts because they are unsatisfactory in some way. 99% of our millions of articles are of less than good quality and so we are exhorted to be tolerant. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There remains a basic problem: there is no such thing as "Epistemics of Divine Reality." The concept can be formed, sure, but there is nothing in any kind of reliable source that could be called that. I hate to be a party pooper, but you are talking about the epistomology of religion, and the first thing that needs to be solved here is the basic terminology of the article. You say there is a "huge quantity of philosophical writings upon the topic," but if the topic is "Epistemics of Divine Reality," than that statement is incorrect: there are no sources on that topic, except for the two written and frequently referenced by the inventor of the phrase. I sound like a broken record, I'm sure, but I have the feeling I'm not getting the basics across here: there is no school, discipline, field, philosophy, concept, or focus group called "Epistemics of Divine Reality." Drmies (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to treat the matter too literally. A topic is not its title - see Proper name (philosophy). The essential points of this topic are extensively discussed by scholars - see here for tens of thousands of sources. If we consider the current title unsatisfactory then we correct this by moving the article to a better title. Deletion is not needed nor appropriate because it would also erase all the content and edit history. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That particular article starts with a definition of sorts of "proper name" by John Stuart Mill, and it could been a definition of or statement about the term by any number of philosophers, logicians, or grammarians--see this search. In our case, we need a page just to even clarify the term, because no one uses it--see this search. That the article is really about something else might be a valid reason to move, but I'm not even sure that the article as it is (an essay of sorts with some philosophical questions thrown in) that it is about 'epistemology of religion': that would be an entirely different article, and the history of the present article adds nothing to such an article. You even proved that yourself in this edit. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an essay / original research. —Lowellian (reply) 06:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Epistemology of religion is one of major branches of philosophy of religion, and there is enough reliable coverage of the topic to fill 100 WP articles. That said, it remains to be seen whether or not this article is a good start. Recommend incubation.  Skomorokh  19:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a general article on that subject; it is one person's theory. Mangoe (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. WP:NAC _Met^ty 03:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Séamus Coleman[edit]

Séamus Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:ATH Steve-Ho (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• how do I withdraw this request - apologies, just seen previous debate resulted in keep Steve-Ho (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Inuit mythology. seems to be the least harmful of the options available and I hope noone minds my using discretion in this case Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wentshukumishiteu[edit]

Wentshukumishiteu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

I cannot find any sources for this creature, in either spelling. No hits in Google Books or News, and what I find on the web is all totally unreliable or as reliable as its strongest source--which is this Wikipedia article. The German and Dutch WP articles have no sources either (and the one for this article is dead). Drmies (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Here's the web archive of the listed source, which is apparently from the official website for the Innu nation. Still a single dead link doesn't really cut it, and the rest of the web hits are quite sketchy. Possible merge into a list. (Now that I'm looking, a number of the articles in Template:Inuit Mythology are one-liners with no source whatsoever.) Joshdboz (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With the low number of literate people familiar with Innu mythology, chances are that many of the deities and other creatures will have few or no reliable sources written about them. Unfortunately, that means information given to Wikipedia about them is not verifiable, and that means no article can be written. At best, there can be a centralized article with only a mere mention of each individual deity or creature. As for the articles mentioned by Joshdboz, maybe an expansion of Inuit mythology is in order. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-->

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I was wondering if this was a hoax or not. Thanks, Josh, for the archived link; I hope some mythology geek comes along and saves this, but I am not comforted by the utter lack of even Google hits. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the problem is just the transliteration into English. I Googled the alternate spelling in brackets and found the United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation Web site, which I've added. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also like to make a WP:PRESERVE appeal here based on the fact that for thousands of years Inuit culture was entirely oral, and cut off from Western contact or transcription. The written form of Inuktitut was only developed in the late 19th century. Aboriginal nations have only begun to take advantage of digital media to document their own stories. So unlike classical or Norse mythology, there is still an awful lot of work to do in documenting Inuit mythology. I myself was present at the premiere of the multi-award-winning feature Atanarjuat and I can tell you that the mythology behind that film was completely opaque to non-Inuit audiences, while entirely familiar to Inuit viewers. So we're just beginning to discover Inuit culture and legend and I respectful ask that we use prudence in considering whether to delete here, as I think the ref now makes it clear this is not a hoax. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 20:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Going through the list of articles in the Inuit mythology template, most of them are one-liners. The "United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation"'s website doesn't inspire confidence as a scholarly source. This article should be merged into the pre-existing Inuit mythology, which is very incomplete and could be greatly improved. The information is good to have on wikipedia but it would be read more often as a part of a unified article, instead of dozens of separate snippets. So my vote would be turn into a redirect to Inuit mythology. -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
  • As for merging dozens of these "snippets," are you also saying we should then delete Template:Inuit_Mythology, which links to these articles? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concepts like Sedna (mythology) and Inua would have no shortage of references. (Inua is short now, but could easily be expanded.) Perhaps just streamline the template down to those articles that have enough material and can stand alone, them merge together the smaller entries that are essentially just definitions? -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
      • I could live with that. I guess we'll see how many red links start appearing in the template, if more articles are deleted and/or merged. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody but the nominator is arguing for deletion so that's not happing. Therefore the choice is between "keep" and "no consensus" and it seems to me that with the sources provided by Cunard , it squeeks by. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake of Stars[edit]

Lake of Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Speedy G11 declined. Music festival with unclear notability, and the article is somewhat promotional. No third-party references. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While this article certainly has issues, it is well written for an article by a newbie. Given that we have a systemic bias favoring technical issues, white race, developed nations, and the nothern hemisphere, we should be glad to have this beginning article, welcome the new, dedicated editor, and help them, instead of overwhelming them with templates after templates and repeated deletion threats. — Sebastian 22:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:N. See this article from ic Liverpool and this article from Resident Advisor. There are many more sources on Google News Archive. Cunard (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know about the Resident Advisor page: it looks like a blog to me. The IC Liverpool site sounds interesting, though. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Resident Advisor is a local magazine, and the article is posted in the "Local News/United Kingdom" category, so I can't see how it's a blog. Cunard (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 20:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Ringer[edit]

Herb Ringer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

It's with some reluctance that I nominate an article that has a certain bathetic appeal, but that asserts minimal significance; that even for this assertion relies on sourcing that's demonstrably unreliable (see its talk page), minimal, and laughably credulous; and that has other issues besides. However, it's sported warning templates quite long enough. Hoary (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn; see below. -- Hoary (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I never have felt well enough to do the reduction to make the entry a simple summary with references to the biographical details, as was mentioned on the talk page. The blahs just have dogged me for months. I think a man who documented the west in the mid-20th century merits an entry. A few minor details about cameras is rather extreme to declare the source "unrealiable". I am saddened at what I perceive as the growing self-pomposity and myopia of the guardians of Wikipedia. Now only bigshots merit entries. What a sad statement of what should be a more democratic entity than traditional encyclopedias. But I am not going to put up a fuss if you delete the entry. Just shake my head at the sad spectacle of it all. User:Dgabbard
  • the growing self-pomposity and myopia of the guardians of Wikipedia -- Why the plural? Only one person had said anything here about Ringer: me. Now, while other people might be offended by a charge of "self-pomposity and myopia", I'm not offended at all; still, I am a little surprised. ¶ I should elaborate on the charge I make above of credulousness. I quote from the article: Ringer had near total recall of his travels, and Stiles found all he had to do to prompt a memory was (for example) state "OK, it's the summer of 1941 and you're getting ready to head west again from New Jersey." Within moments Ringer would respond "Yes. I remember I left about eight in the morning. It was a clear cool day. Not too hot. I traveled north on Route 22 and stopped for breakfast at a little diner." Many people have the ability to convincingly give surprising detail about past events. A much smaller number can actually do so reliably. I'm willing to believe that Ringer was among that smaller number. But I don't see any hint that he was. Nobody would expect that a newspaper writer would subject him to some memory test, but there were surely plenty of opportunities for the writer to announce that yes, his researches had proved that this or that implausible detail that Ringer claimed to remember was in fact true. ¶ a man who documented the west in the mid-20th century merits an entry Well, there were a fair number of people who did just that, a number of FSA photographers among them. Of course, this doesn't mean that WP shouldn't present more, and I'm very willing to believe that Ringer's interests (and use of color) set him off from the mainstreams -- and even this is unnecessary, but let's see evidence of a degree of recognition. ¶ Now only bigshots merit articles: Absolutely not: among photographers, consider the FSA photographer Sheldon Dick, a minor and at best mediocre photographer whose work is treated with some respect in the article here; Kensuke Kazama, who until recently was standing in a Tokyo park on sunny days, selling his photos for a thousand yen a print; Mieko Shiomi, an amateur whose works have appeared in a single book that she published herself; and I suppose a whole lot of others besides. ¶ As for the shock of having one's own article flagged for possible deletion, (i) this article has had other warning templates for a long time (neither you nor anybody else had touched it for five months), and (ii) when my learned friend Dicklyon did something similar to one of "my" articles, I was so pissed off with this/him, and was so dogged by the blahs, that I improved the article. You are (and anyone else is) very welcome to do likewise to this article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe he might be notable, though it's hard to sort that out from the overdetailed bio. I removed the material which would give any reasonable person a bias against the article. Next step, it would help to have some additional source--are his photographs are in any collection? Where, besides this one local magazine were they published? DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DGG for doing the summary I readily admit I should have done. SIGH. Yeah, additional sources would be helpful. Ringer seems to have fallen between the cracks as to being documented. And I think Mr. Stiles is the one with custody of the photos and there is no indication when/if they might be donated to an approriate archive. "growing self-pomposity and myopia" I guess is a reaction to some of my encounters with editors and also all this talk in media reports that edits will soon have to pass muster with editors who will police the site. Not always a very plesant experience. If the slimmed down version passes muster I am grateful. User:Dgabbard

All those media reports: here's a sample. If I understand the change correctly, it will have absolutely no impact on your attempts to edit the minority of articles that would be affected, as long as you were logged in. Neither the article on Ringer nor this AfD would be affected. But this is better discussed elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and at this point it's only BLP's that are being considered. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

any chance of an article on Stiles, or his magazine. It would give some perspective on importance? DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Stiles would take time to research. Not sure how much perspective on importance it would contributeUser:Dgabbard

There's enough out there. See this for starters. (I might even start something later today.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm disappointed. Unlike a lot of articles on obscure photographers, this one can't be promotional: the man's dead, and nobody seems to be attempting to make money off his work. I like to hear of photographers who are doing something that isn't merely commercial; I'd hoped to hear more about Ringer that would lead me to withdraw this nomination. Well, there's still time. -- Hoary (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• PS and if JForget undertook to do some work on this within a year from now, he'd be welcome to have it userfied in the meantime. -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I could if it is deleted, although I will relist this a final time. JForget 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted for a final time. JForget 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say. DGG did the necessary editing to make the entry a summary of what Ringer did and why he matters. He documented a world that no longer exists. Decades from now historians will celebrate having his visual record of mid-20th century western culture as a resource to draw on. I am sure in time the photos will be donated to a institution that will make them available. I think all that merits an entry. If it doesn't measure up, I appreciate a fair discussion was held on its merits. User:Dgabbard

Nomination withdrawn. Although I think immediately above Dgabbard overstates the case for Ringer, and although Ringer seems only to have been noticed by a single, local publication, that publication itself seems article-worthy and this article is now scrupulously compiled. Incidentally, my own sagging bookshelves contain several volumes of photographs from the miraculously preserved collections of negatives of this or that photographer -- Victor Barsokevitsch (fi:Victor Barsokevitsch), Johannes Pääsuke, etc) -- and I wish all the best for Ringer's afterlife. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychopathic Rydas. Evil saltine (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duk Da Fuk Down[edit]

Duk Da Fuk Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable album from a band of questionable notability. Fails WP:NALBUMS. According to Allmusic, the album never charted. [4]. Unlikely search term make redirect a poor option and the possibility that the band article itself won't survive AfD does as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Looks like enough Ghits exist to prove notability. (Side note: I listen to rap, but after looking at the cover, I don't think I'd buy this album.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we know just counting Ghits doesn't make something notable, would you mind explaining how you feel the album passes WP:NALBUMS? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said weak because the album is available for purchase at Amazon -- but some users don't consider that enough for notability. (BTW, I changed your wikilink to WP:NALBUMS because WP:ALBUMS is a WikiProject.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be one of those users. Considering that Amazon will sell books from vanity publishers etc, I can't consider simply being for sale to be much of an indicator of notability. But thanks for the response. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delizzle - not a notable album, no meaningful content that is not already covered at Psychopathic Rydas.  pablo_hablo. 11:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note :Relisted for a last time for more discussion. JForget 20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NALBUM, specifically "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Seeing as Psychopathic Rydas is notable enough, the album is inherently notable. That said, I wouldn't mind a merge into PR, per "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article" Cheers, I'^mperator 00:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "then officially released albums may have sufficient notability". Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hence why I said "I wouldn't mind a merge", as I agree the article doesn't present much new information. Cheers, I'^mperator 13:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So I guess my question is if you are ok with the merge and it doesn't really meet the keep criteria, why your !vote is "keep" instead of "merge" then? I'm just asking out of curiosity, not really arguing it with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh...I'm fine w/ either...how about Merge into Psychopathic Rydas. I guess the point I'm trying to get at is that the info is perfectly valid and shouldn't be deleted. Cheers, I'^mperator 00:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G12) as a copyright infringement of all the sites that were listed in the article, with the exception of one, which is a circular reference a Wikipedia article which was copypasted. MuZemike 23:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Migraine Magazine[edit]

Migraine Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable zine with two issues published. I couldn't find any sources in the usual places. this is the original version of the article. Prod removed. Prezbo (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: The entire article is copyvios from multiple sources. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Send More Paramedics[edit]

Send More Paramedics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Band does not meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Several editors have had their hands in this article, so the band has a few fans at least, but no indications of any degree of notability. No secondary sources given, nor could any be found with significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the band's albums:

• A Feast for the Fallen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Hallowed and the Heathen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Awakening (Send More Paramedics album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, while I did find an album review [5], that was it. I also found this, but in my book, advertising in the local paper that you've got a video shoot on isn't exactly significant coverage. Fails to establish notability per WP:MUSICBIO with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. If the band article does end up getting deleted the albums will be taken care of under speedy A9.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following remark is transcluded from the talk page

• Keep: "Rock and roll has got to go." Randy RALEY, 1958. One by one, KWK St. Louis broke every single rock and roll album in their inventory. In the end, the station closed as their listenership dropped.

This is the same thing; Deleting the entry just becasue they're not a band "anymore" is like deleting the Elvis page becasue he's not a singer anymore (he's dead).65.100.56.249 (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)A REDSON[reply]

End of transclusion.

The page isn't up for deletion because they're not a band anymore. The page is up for deletion because, even while they were a band, they did not achieve the degree of notability required by WP:MUSIC. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a lack of sources means the band isn't notable enough. Deserted Cities 04:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Fairly well known band in the UK, and they've received quite a bit of coverage, for example from the BBC, Gigwise, Drowned in Sound, and DiS again.--Michig (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for finding those references. I didn't find them in my initial search. It would be of great help if they could be added to the article. For now, I'll withdraw the nomination. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn per above comments and newly found references. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added these. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources have been found since the article was nominated for deletion, and the band appears to be notable per WP:MUSIC criteria #1 and possibly #4. snigbrook (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources now present are adequate. Evil saltine (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Color light acupuncture[edit]

Color light acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Contested prod. Non notable, fringe, alt med treatment which makes no claims of notability and has no WP:RS. Clear advertising introduced by a WP:COI and probable copyright concerns despite disclaimer. Verbal chat 19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Keep: As Derek said, alternative practices should be described here, regardless of whether they have been conclusively proven or disproven yet. All other issues with the article can be fixed through trimming, adding, or editing.Tanesh333(talk)11:01 PM 15 September 2009 (UTC) — Tanesh333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete: per above, no WP:RS in respected peer-reviewed journals listed. Leuko (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please do not Delete this page, the issues above have been resolved. User: Roger13Zimmerman, --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No they haven't. Verbal chat 04:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What needs to be resolved?--Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A fairly straightforward speedy delete (for advertising). This is utter nonsense without WP:RS. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not the place for the advertisement of pseudoscientific drivel. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as utter nonsense, unsupported by any scientific data. The article is in fact a platform for one company's advertising. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to keep. The article has now been substantially improved, and no longer relies solely on material lifted from a single company's publicity material. That doesn't change the fact that the therapy is nonsense unsupported by any science, but there are now at least some reliable sources referred to in the article. Colorpuncture is nonsense, but it is nonsense that does exist, and that is good enough for a WP article! But I deplore the sock-/meatpuppetry that is so much in evidence on this AFD page. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs )

• Keep it may be utter nonsense, but like other alternative practices deserves a place here where it can be described for what it is. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have expanded and reworked some of this article, using subheads similar to Aromatherapy. Apart from the long list of further reading, I think the article is now mostly neutral, devoid of advertising and has enough references to show its notability. Lets not confuse the validity of the practice with the validity of the article, which is about a treatment many people seem to be using and others may want to learn about. Admittedly it still needs work, but I don't now believe it should be deleted.Derek Andrews (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Added sources were to ad-sites and purported studies that, upon perusal, consisted of a list of unfounded claims on efficacy sprinkled with "mind / body connect" stuff and two testimonials thinly veiled as case studies. No indication of independent coverage, no clinical trials, etc. Edits reverted as they lack reliable sources.Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't believe this alternative practice to be notable. Also WP:CB.Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nonsensical non notable advertising. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Color light acupuncture, or colorpuncture has been studied for decades. There are many alternatives to using needles to stimulate acupuncture points that are all well accepted, such as: acupressure, heat, EFT, micro- electric stimulation, even magnetism. Therefore it is unscientific to just assume that light can not be used to stimulate acupuncture points. I have put numerous references up for this article that discuss the research done on colorpuncture, and they keep getting deleted. I believe there are unfair biased readers that are trying to take down this article. Even if there isn't 100% proof that colorpuncture works, it needs to be given a chance, like every other new field. And besides that even drugs on the market that are approved by the FDA are not considered "proven" until they stood the test of time and results. Also not believing that colorpuncture works or not is not a reason to take down this article, as Wiki is meant to be for a definition of what it is, for example "God" is listed in Wiki, there isn't 100% proof that God exists or not, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. I am very disappointed in how this article has evolved. Also if there are minor incorrect statements, such as use of the word "scientifically proven" and there are only 2 references stated, this is not a reason to delete my statement and to delete the 2 references, I need to be given a chance to either remove the work "scientific" or to add more references. Also, I had numerous further readings that were deleted, again this is someone that is biased against this article. Someone also stated that this should be included under "Alternative medicine", there are hundreds of alternative medicines, that all deserve their own article, trying to capture all of them in one article is insane. Use some common sense before you consider deleting this article. roger13zimmerman: --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the complete lack of empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of this treatment is a secondary issue compared to the lack of reliable sources. There is 1 third party source, a puff piece in the Taipei Times. Nothing else. Wikipedia is not addspace for snake oil.Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided Actually, Wikipedia already has Snake oil... As to the procedure, I regard it (so far) as twaddle. However, I regard Homeopathy as even worse twaddle, but which is so widespread as to merit articling. This could be merged into Accupuncture. As it stands at time of posting this, it doesn't appear to be too much of an advert. I'll keep a watch on developments from my uncomfortable perch on this fence. Are the lights any good for curing numb bum? Peridon (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added research articles from The American Journal of Acupuncture. They do indicate that there are good results that indicate that Color light acupuncture can promote healing. I re-iterate my argument again for the last user calling it "Snake Oil", which is that an area of practice does not need to be scientifically proven or not to be a topic for an encyclopedia. How many decades was "global warming" considered unscientifically proven before they finally agreed and accepted it (most scientists do, but some still disagree on it). Had Wiki existed back when the "global warming" debate started, would it's position be "Global warming is not scientifically proven so just delete any articles on global warming". Think about it before you delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger13Zimmerman (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC) --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Roger13Zimmerman (talk · contribs) has now voted to keep three times. When considering for consensus keep in mind this one user represents 3 of the 4 keep statements.Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My misunderstanding of how this process works, I changed my input to "comments" and left only 1 as "keep" --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not even the NCCAM mentions this practice. QuackWatch gives it (or something similar) two lines, but no other independent source appears to have noticed. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with an eye to merging it with a Variations of acupuncture article. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Spam-originated articles merit an additional level of scrutiny. No sufficiently independent evidence of notability has been proffered. NTK (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When I search "Color light acupuncture" on google there are almost 14,000 results. Many of them are acupuncturists that also practice "Color light acupuncture", I'd like to reference them on Wiki, but it would likely be considered a conflict of interest and get deleted. People are using Color light acupuncture and are having positive results. It is senseless to deny anyone else from learning that it exists by deleting this article. The American Journal of Acupuncture is a notable reference.--Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources are reliable, not notable. Google hits are meaningless. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: only a single puff-piece from outside the acupuncture community = no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 21:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment CSICOP seems have noticed the topic; [6]. Logos5557 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a fair amount of proof to prove that color light acupuncture is a legitimate treatment and even if isn't proven it is still a real life treatment that some people believe and therefor does deserve an article. --WitKid (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)— WitKid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep Come on guys it's still a valid topic that deserves an article.--Aaron.c.zimm (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)— Aaron.c.zimm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Aaron.c.zimm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep Suntanning is good for you, is it so preposterous that lights can help you? There is proof given on the article so I see no reason why it shouldn't be kept.--Pyroball (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC) — Pyroball (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep or merge to Acupuncture or Color therapy. I've moved the title to Colorpuncture as that is the name per nearly all the sources. I have tidied it up and add sources such as the Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptical Dictionary, Time Out. Roger13Zimmerman reverted; surely it's just a coincidence that the owner of Roze Company, who use the term "color light acupuncture", is called Roger Zimmerman?[7] Fences&Windows 23:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• p.s. Is it just me, or does this AfD smell of socks? Fences&Windows 23:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Colorpuncture sounds like it could work, keep the Colorpuncture article, and keep posting results of tests here. Whether it works or not, keep the results for all to see, and make their own conclusion, nothing in alternative health is ever black and white. --LesaLC (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC) — LesaLC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment I concur there are socky things afoot. Simonm223 (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable pseudoscience. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To the users stating there are socky things afoot if you are referring to me, I have not claimed to NOT be part of Roze Company. I have used my own name as my user name. I have called this practice both Color light acupuncture and Colorpuncture on my website, so I don't have any conflicts of interest with either name. And just because I am trying to make a living on a practice that I believe in, should not be a reason that Colorpuncture doesn't deserve an article in Wikipedia. The fact that myself and many other are applying this practice is even more of a reason that it should be on Wiki. And for the Nth time, just because a practice is not 100% scientifically proven is not a reason to try to hide that it even exists. There are many articles on Wiki that are not scientifically proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.133.115 (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC) (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment It seems that you may not be familiar well with wikipedia policies and guidelines. According to WP:Paid, if there is a "paid editing", for a fair game, "All paid editors are required to disclose their paid status on both their user page and on the affected article's talk page". WP:COI. Logos5557 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete obvious psuedoscience that isn't notable in the slightest. Seems to be a large population of socks and meatpuppets as well. --M^ask? 04:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why is this page even being considered for deletion anymore? All problems seem to be fixed. Close this discussion please. --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see that most comments for deleting this article are because the user does not believe colorpuncture is an effective practice. Wiki has an article for Emotional Freedom Technique and is has both positive and negative research references under "Studies" and it has a "Criticism" area. I suggest doing the same thing for this Colorpuncture article. I'd do it, but someone would likely just delete it anyway, so I suggest someone else do it. --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)--[reply]

• Comment Wiki's rules are that the merit of the comments in this section are more important than the number of votes either way. So I'd like to present some relevant information here. I had a reference to an article on The American Journal of Acupuncture (which was deleted) that stated that there were "dramatic" improvements in the symptoms from the colorpuncture treatments:

The American Journal of Acupuncture Vol. 24, No. 2&3; Vol. 25, No. 2&3; and Vol. 27, No. 1&2

A Review of Recent Research Studies on the Efficacy of Esogetic Colorpuncture Therapy – A Wholistic Acu-Light System

Abstract: This article reviews recent studies conducted in Europe, which sought to evaluate the effectiveness of Peter Mandel’s Esogetic Colorpuncture Therapy (ECT). These investigations addressed the use of specific ECT therapies for treating a variety of difficult health problems: migraines, childhood insomnia, bronchitis, ADD or learning disorders, and uterine fibroids. Limitations in research design and sample size necessitate that these studies be viewed as pilot or preliminary research. However, in all the studies, the findings showed dramatic improvement of symptoms after ECT treatments. This suggests that ECT may offer fast, economical, non-invasive and non-toxic methods for treating the selected health problems and that ECT continues to show promise as a powerful new method of wholistic healing.

I am sure I could find many more "positive" articles on colorpuncture, and possibly "negative" articles. And as per my last comment, the reader should have the right to see both types of research. Wiki is meant to be neutral, which in my mind, means that the reader should be presented both sides and allowed to make their own opinion. It is not for Wiki's users to decide what is "correct" and only present that side of an article.

In alternative medicine, or even western medicine the conclusion of the effectiveness of any medicine or treatment is almost never definitive. That doesn't mean the medicine or treatment isn't worth discussing.

--Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The American Journal of Acupuncture may not be considered as reliable third-party source. The notability of the topic should be proved/established in the first place, not whether it works or not. If the topic is notable, then the information can be presented in a neutral fashion. WP:GNG. Logos5557 (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wiki's definition of "Non-notable or nn mean that the user thinks the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines either due to its obscurity or lack of differentiation from others of its type."

• Colorpuncture is not "obscure" - if you type "colorpuncture" in Google you get 8,150 pages, and if you type in "color light acupuncture" you get 13,900 pages. There are many people practicing it worldwide. It can be easily differentiated from any other type of acupuncture. So can anyone say why this page is still being considered for deletion? --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the results of the research were very positive (or negative), why remain neutral and not say if the results were good or bad? This is hiding info from the reader. --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My reference to scientific articles and futher readings on colorpuncture were deleted from this article, yet the following unscientific statement remains in the article: "I had some weird shit happen to me during the treatment". It seems like there is a bias towards deleting any good info and leaving up things that make the colorpuncture practice look bad.--Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wiki's Definition of Neutral is: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

This states that "all views" are published by reliable sources. That means positive or negative views can be published. So the users that deleted my positive research articles on the basis of "neutrality" please put them back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger13Zimmerman (talk • contribs) 07:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources were included willy-nilly, that's why I removed them. I'll think about adding them back, but Wikipedia doesn't need to include every primary source on a topic; we base articles on secondary sources. And the "some weird shit" quote is actually supportive of colorpuncture... Fences&Windows 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article now seems to be neutral and well-enough sourced to me. It may be nonsense, but it appears to be notable nonsense. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yes, it is probably pseudoscience. Yes, there's a COI with Roger13Zimmerman. Yes, this deletion discussion is full of sock/meatpuppets. But none of those are good reasons to delete. The article is sourced and rewritten now, so "not notable" is also not valid, and Wikipedia:Complete bollocks doesn't apply either. Argue to merge if you don't want an individual article on this topic, but arguing to delete now appears to be based on prejudice, not policy. Fences&Windows 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal: no, the "independent" (i.e. from outside the acupuncture community) coverage is not "significant" -- it is just a handful of bare/brief mentions, so no, "not notable" is most certainly valid, and so is a a valid reason for deletion. Your claim of "prejudice, not policy" has no basis in either the facts or WP:AGF. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's possible to argue for deletion in good faith, but I find it very tedious to have AGF quoted at me when deletion votes of this kind are being deployed: "This is utter nonsense without WP:RS", "Wikipedia is not the place for the advertisement of pseudoscientific drivel", "obvious psuedoscience that isn't notable in the slightest". These arguments are weak and kneejerk, though there was the mitigating circumstance of Roger Zimmerman's obvious COI and POV editing. Famousdog below gives a much more nuanced argument, though damages their case by saying "I'd not heard of it", which is always a terrible argument. Notability is not a dichotomy; this therapy, however pseudoscientific, has gained significant coverage in reliable sources, it has mentions in several more reliable sources, it has published results - though I do worry for the reputation of the journals - and it has gained a fair amount of attention in the alternative health literature. If despite this coverage by independent sources one feels that the topic is insufficiently notable to stand alone, then a reasonable editor following WP:PRESERVE will consider a merge target. We have two: Color therapy and Acupuncture. I favour the former if it comes to a merge. To delete there needs to be a convincing argument for why Wikipedia should have no mention of this therapy despite all the sources that we can find that discuss it. Fences&Windows 01:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It you don't want the 'tedium' then don't make sweeping statements like "'not notable' is also not valid" & "arguing to delete now appears to be based on prejudice, not policy". The "alternative health literature" is neither independent nor particularly reliable, and provides no basis for notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree with me, but don't patronise me.

"The "alternative health literature" is neither independent nor particularly reliable, and provides no basis for notability." That's a sweeping statement. Not all alternative health publications will be financially or otherwise connected to Colorpuncture, and some will have a reputation for fact checking. Coverage of an alternative health therapy in the alternative health press is some indication of notability - it'd strengthen the argument for deletion if they hadn't covered it, but they have. Fences&Windows 03:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about possible socks/meatpuppets. After noticing the activity above by several one-edit newbies, and the comments about possible sock activity, I have placed a request on the pages of these users asking for comments:

• Roger13Zimmerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.147.133.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pyroball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LesaLC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aaron.c.zimm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WitKid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clarity is always a good thing. It might be a good idea for everyone to watchlist these users. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See here. They are from the same connection, and have been admitted as meat-puppets (at least). Irbisgreif (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge with Acupuncture This is very fringe of the fringe stuff. Even as somebody with an amatuer interest in altmed and a professional interest in color vision, I have never heard of this. For those users arguing that it is "notable enough to be written about", look at the sources! A lifestyle piece for Time Out, a few papers from acupuncture journals (which are usually written, reviewed and edited by believers/practitioners), the Dictionary of Metaphysical Healthcare (mind boggles), the Chinese Medical Times (acupuncture is a source of national pride to the Chinese, which leads to a severe publication bias) ... Suffice to say this is weak evidence of efficacy, but it is also pretty weak evidence of notability. Get rid. Famousdog (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Acupuncture. Changed to Keep or Merge to Acupuncture. Notability of the topic is not strong enough to justify a separate article. It seems notability is on the edge. Although I still think that merging to Acupuncture would be the best choice, as there would be more eyes on when it's a subheading of that article, so that possible recursive spammings/adverts from some magical equipment manufacturers can be undone more rapidly, the other option is to "let it serve as a warning to potential users" as mentioned below by a user. Logos5557 (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - enough sources in a variety of places to merit a sentence on the acupuncture page, but that's about it. There's no WP:MEDRS to justify any claims of effectiveness, therefore no need to describe its process. Could easily be a single sentence "Variations of acupuncutre include colorpuncture (the use of colored lights instead of needles)..." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think it is justified to try and apply WP:MEDRS to an alternative medicine therapy. While I am not opposed to a merge, I am of the opinion that there is enough here to warrant a separate article. Derek Andrews (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's totally justified, as MEDRS is for medical articles. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. How about these? [8], [9], [10], [11] (click to page 177) Logos5557 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Any article making medical claims gets WP:MEDRS applied to it, otherwise alternative medical articles have an unfair advantage regards claims of effectiveness over real medicine. Those google books sources only mention the technique, they do not discuss in detail, provide any substantive information, and certainly don't support any claims of efficacy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As it stands now, this article doesn't make any medical claims, it merely describes a practise that has been in use for several decades. The article, as it stands, is a good warning to anyone considering using it, that they should proceed with caution. Is it not better that this article exists to counter misleading marketing for the practise? Derek Andrews (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a discussion under way at MEDRS talk about references for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Derek Andrews (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin – User:LesaLC, User:Tanesh333, User:Pyroball, User:Aaron.c.zimm, User:WitKid have all been indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of User:Roger13Zimmerman (who has been blocked for 1 week for engaging in sock puppetry). MuZemike 21:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly the actual procedure is no more than one way among many of fleecing the vulnerable and gullible sick of their cash. But it certainly does exist. Having said that, in my view it is merely one among a myriad of charlatan-practised procedures and, as such, is not intrinsically notable. Very few meaningful Ghits and I, as a medical practitioner in the UK, have never heard of it. Closing admin please note that the author is the same editor who appears in a variety of sockpuppet guises throughout this discussion, who clearly shows a conflict of interest. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the originating author's work to whom you refer has now been deleted or modified.Derek Andrews (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:IDONTKNOWIT is an argument to avoid. Ghits are irrelevant. Nobody is trying to argue that it has intrinsic notability; the argument to keep or merge is based on coverage in sources. Fences&Windows 00:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete violates most of the content policies I can think of and looks like no chance of saving. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you care to state which policies and how it violates them? Fences&Windows 00:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources don't reveal enough notability. Fringe kicks in quite a bit. This is really scrapping at the bottom to justify anything on the topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a notable form of nonsense, delusional thinking, utter BS, pseudoscience, and quackery. Its notability is very adequately established by numerous fringe sources. (That's where our sourcing rules for FRINGE articles apply. Fringe sources create the notability.) How those sources are to be used in the article is governed by WEIGHT (IOW not much at all since they aren't WP:MEDRS, while the few mainstream sources that give it very passing mention are given prominence). Keep it and let it serve as a warning to potential users who are getting suckered by false advertising. This is an unfortunate part of the sum total of human knowledge and belief, and at Wikipedia it is our job to cover it all, including nonsense. Brangifer (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep notable enough to keep, barely. Numerous fringe sources are enough for articles on fringe. Many of the delete arguments do seem to be based on the fact that this is even stupider than the average, which is something aI heartily agree with, but it doesn't affect notability for our purposes. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McEntagert[edit]

Michael McEntagert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP-ATH Steve-Ho (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Plays in the seventh tier of English pro football. Falls well short of WP:ATHLETE. Cmprince (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete has never played in a fully-pro level of football, thus failing WP:ATH. --Jimbo^[online] 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hasn't played at a professional level Spiderone 07:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 09:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar. Tone 17:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Mirkwood[edit]

Siege of Mirkwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As yet unreleased, non-notable, software, fails GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A properly announced (not some vague rumours) expansion of a notable MMORPG, which has received attention in reliable sources around the world. E.g. Belgian newspaper "De Morgen"[12], Wired[13], and numerous specialized magazines and websites (65 Google News results). Crystal does not mean that we shouldn't have articles on unreleased software, as evidenced by the line "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims." Since we have different reliable sources explicitly about this expansion (so no passing mentions), it meets the GNG and doesn't fail crystal. Fram (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Something that doesn't exist yet does not gain notability by transference from a notable predecessor. It is not yet knowable whether this game will ever be released, let alone independently notable, which it certainly is not now. There's certainly nothing in Fram's links that establishes an unusual level of anticipation that merits inclusion on that basis. NTK (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unreleased things can still be notable. We don't have to be certain that X will happen, there just has to be a clear announcement with concrete information in reliable sources. "We are working on a new version / expansion" is insufficient: "we have a new expansion ready, this is its name, here are the demos, and it will be released in the next few months for that price" is good enough (for crystal, not for notability), even if it ultimately never materializes. this never happened either (but is obviously very notable). And why would you want an unusual level of anticipation? Don't the normal WP:N rules not apply to announced things? Anyway, I know that Google numbers are not sufficient, but if you want an unusual level of anticipation, over half a million Google hits may satisfy you[14]. Fram (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: IMHO very few unreleased games etc are notable, Beatles Rock Band maybe, and merely a high level of expectation, even in half a million Ghits, does not amount to "significant [my emphasis] coverage in reliable sources". Why do we need an article on this now - can we not wait to see if it does indeed become notable post-release and create the article then? – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the main Shadows of Angmar article as long as the expansion itself isn't released. When the expansion pack hass been received some more public attention a standalone might be due. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Simply merge to The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar with an appropriate citation. Marasmusine (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Holly[edit]

Jolly Holly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod about an animated internet special. A Google search mainly led to hits that only mentioned the subject in passing, and this doesn't seem to have coverage outside of Santa Monica College. All but one of the external links are to front pages of websites, and the article itself suggests the special isn't even in development yet. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Delete - I have a feeling that this is really a WP:CRYSTAL issue... an article on something that may become notable, but isn't yet. I find no coverage in reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject. Perhaps this will change in the future, in which case the article can be re-created. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If it's not notable now, it's not suitable for inclusion. Its recency is only further reason for deletion given its dubious reach. NTK (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Nabeel Al Ahmad[edit]

Abdullah Nabeel Al Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article lacks independent sourcing, and does not indicate that the subject meets WP:Bio guidelines. also looks for sources cant find any he not listed on Kazma article and i cant any sources he played for Kuwait Under-17 team at any time it look slike he is a nn youth player not played at the top level of soccer/football. the first afd request did not go Thur properly sorry Oo7565 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Couldn't find any evidence of notability.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - why are there two open AfDs for this one article? GiantSnowman 11:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the nominator must have submitted it twice by accident. Anyway, this player is clearly non-notable as he hasn't made an appearance at senior level. Spiderone 12:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment yeah submitted it twice by accident. i thought for what ever reason it did go tthough the first time it did not show up anywhere thats why i did it again sorry my fault.Oo7565 (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you withdraw the first nomination we will be able to close it. GiantSnowman 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• i withdrew the first one i thinkOo7565 (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have closed the first nom down using WP:NAC. GiantSnowman 18:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article was speedy deleted under WP:CSD A3 and G2. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slackle[edit]

Slackle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. Article is simply a dictionary definition of a neologism. TNXMan 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my reasoning here. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongbar Industries[edit]

Strongbar Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article was PRODed with "Unreferenced and unwikified, tagged for notability since August without improvement". As it had previously been PRODed I'm moving to AfD. I also have suspicions about self-publicity, the creator is West.kgb2, and the article refers to key people Gordon West, President and W.H.K. West, Founder. Bazj (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and apologies for any confusion that was caused in good faith. Durova³¹⁸ 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability, fails WP:CORP.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 19:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promises of reference from the article's creator have not materialized in >1 months time & I haven't found any useful sources myself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per Thaddeus. Joe Chill (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pc mover[edit]

Pc mover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability - fails GNG. ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PC Mover - a popular MS Windows-based software for the Moving and Storage Industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nshoy (talk • contribs) 17:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PC Mover - a popular MS Windows-based software for the Moving and Storage Industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nshoy (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Yes the article says that, but is it notable? – ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Also under ((db-g11)). Article is an advert which fails to establish notability of the subject. Article also goes onto a tangent about the American Moving & Storage Association, but notability is not inherited. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time to review my article. Please keep in mind that this is an initial version and there is more to come. Any of your feedback is appreciated. Hello from NYC. Nshoy (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under g11. I initially put this up for "prod", but it has become clear that this is an advertising attempt. Marasmusine (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. No prejudice against a speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated urban water management (IUWM)[edit]

Integrated urban water management (IUWM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:Original research and/or WP:Synthesis. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userfy. I would suggest merging to Integrated Urban Water Management, but there isn't a single page that links to that article, so I'm prodding it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there are now three articles linking to the IUWM page I created today and the title does not have the acronym anymore. If you could kindly point out what areas of the article do not satisfy WP:Original research and/or WP:Synthesis, I will address them.--Miguelaaron (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to merge with a three-year old article titled, i.e. Integrated Urban Water Management that has been abandoned. I would suggest nominating this article for deletion rather than my article Integrated urban water management which is new and of relevant and useful content to water practitioners in the field.--Miguelaaron (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course you don't want to delete this article, because you created it! Anyway, removing the acronym doesn't really change the situation here. It's not that it isn't well-written; it's that it comes across more as an essay (or maybe even an ad) instead of an encyclopedia article. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it has better information in it now than it did when I nominated it, but it's still difficult to tell because it reads overall more like a commentary relating to it than as an encyclopedia article about it. Originally it resembled an article that someone might write with the title "Pigeons" that, instead of beginning by explaining what a pigeon is and providing general information about pigeons, began, "Many cities are troubled by the large number of pigeons that live in them." For example, you don't tell us what the topic is until the third paragraph#8212;and even there, you worded it to make it look like the topic is "a paper published by the United Nations Environmental Project (UNEP)" rather than IUWM. Take a look at WP:Lead section and consider moving the third paragraph, with the accompanying bullet points, and rewording the first sentence. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted. I have reworded a bit and moved the third paragraph into the lead. The goal here is to generate a "stub" or snapshot that that can be linked to from other urban water mgmt. articles. and quickly summarizes the few major descriptions of IUWM and approaches in addressing / implementing IUWM into urban water mgmt. planning.--Miguelaaron (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn I withdraw my nomination for deletion. The article has really shaped up. I understand my withdrawal is nonbinding, but my original concerns are, in my opinion, obsolete. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks.--Miguelaaron (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the "nomination for deletion" box from the top of the article as well.--Miguelaaron (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is neither yours nor mine to do. I'm restoring it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your restoring the box or the nomination for deletion? If you have no more grievances and withdrawn your nomination, why do you care that I take it off? OK, so I will leave it there. When does it come down and who does that? Please explain.--Miguelaaron (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because those are the rules of the process. The person who nominates an article for deletion doesn't own the process, nor does the article's author. Once it's begun, the community owns it and it goes by the rules. See WP:Articles for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough.--Miguelaaron (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some of the arguments advanced during the discussion are a bit on the weak side, but consenses is nonetheless in favor of retaining the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hanley Grange[edit]

Hanley Grange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article for a planned town where the plans were shelved. The place is not, never was, and will not be. While there is press coverage, a cancelled planned development has no enduring historical notability. Ray^Talk 16:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I don't know about "will not be" (the outlook doesn't look though). Although articles about cancelled ideas do exist (Russia Tower, for example), I couldn't find enough reliable coverage here to avoid crystal ballery. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It needs more sources, but the size of the development and the conflict around it seem to support notability. It was also shortlisted (among 15) to compete for government eco-town (UK) grants. Compare to Atlantic Yards, another (much larger) project that has been started and stalled because of development concerns. Cmprince (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article needs addition of sources (here are a few for ease of access: [15], [16],[17], [18], [19], [20], ) but the fact that something was planned and a source of controversy or debate can definitely be notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. For example, the Strait of Gibraltar crossing and Orkney Tunnel among planned tunnels; theme parks/entertainment venues which never were built, e.g., Disney's America, SugarHouse Casino; and residential developments, e.g., Omni Development, Criterion Place, and Central Village, Liverpool. --Milowent (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. The idea of eco-towns is a significantly notable ongoing concept, and even if none of them ever get the the go-ahead, it's attracted by far enough attention to qualify here. I'm not sure whether enough can be written about individual proposals to warrant one article per proposed eco-town, but most or all of this information is notable enough to go somewhere. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I am far from sure that many of the present government's eco-towns will ever be built, but if they are they will certainly be notable settlements, though whehter they will really be "eco-" seems doubtful to me. They are real government proposals, not a pipedream from an architect's office, so that the article should exist. If it does get built, the presetn content will no doubt be relegated to a section on opposition to its creation, but that remains to be seen. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article is of long term interest. Rosser Gruffydd 22:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The arguments for deletion seem to focus on the lack of secondary sources covering the topic, but as these appear to have been provided, I think it is safe to close this as "keep". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East[edit]

Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article lacks verifiability because there are no reliable, third-party sources. It therefore also fails the general notability guideline ("A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") as well as the more detailed notability guideline for films. Was created in April 2007 by a now-banned user who engaged in regular POV pushing. *** Crotalus *** 16:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—even the article has a reliable third party source, and if you want more, pick one of the 79,100 Google results. The documentary appears in all major online film databases, and has been a subject of numerous reviews. It further concerns me that the nominator used "was created ... by a now-banned user" as one of his arguments, as if that somehow invalidates the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes the "Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle" a reliable source? They look like a random website — where is the evidence of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Yes, there are lots of Google hits — that proves nothing. We need reliable sources, not random webpages. Can you cite any reliable, third-party sources that specifically discuss the film (not merely mention it in passing)? When I googled "Relentless: The Struggle for Peace" (in quotes), I found a bunch of blogs, self-published webpages, bittorrent sites, etc., but nothing that I would classify as a reliable source in this context. Numerous reviews — where are they? I want evidence, not vague generalities. *** Crotalus *** 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless neutral third party sources can be provided establishing satisfactory notability.--TM 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the number of non-banned editors who have worked on the article since its creation. Not a surprise that a docummentary titled Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in Israel might receive coverage in Jewish reliable sources... Jerusalem Post, Jewish Journal, Forward... but it has been written up in non-Jewish reliable sources as well... Oakland Tribune, Miami Herald, and The Age, but to note only a few. It appears the author has not edited the article since September of 2007... so if there are concerns about article sourcing or tone, that would seem to be a matter for cleanup... not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• And The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, founded in 1921, does not seem quite random to me. WIkipedia does not denigrate the Washington Post if it writes about Washington, DC activities... nor Times of India if they write about something of interest to India. Articles about a documentary of interest to someone Jewish, might quite reasonably be found in Jewish press. That does not invalidate the coverage. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MichaelQSchmidt Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manan trivedi[edit]

Manan trivedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not clear that this person meets WP:POLITICIAN. Every candidate for an office will be reported in the local media; the guideline makes it explicit that this is insufficient to establish notability for Wikipedia purposes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the feedback -- Trivedi is actually getting international attention for this run because of his place in the Indian immigrant community. He is also generating national attention because he is an Iraq war veteran. If I find more sources to corroborate those non-local stories, will that be helpful? --Kalipoli (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now I don't see that you have any sources at all that indicate national or international attention, though I may have missed something. Yes, that would help. But I don't know what you mean when you refer to "his place in the Indian immigrant community" or what its significance is. A biographical article on Wikipedia needs to provide the information about a person that indicates why it makes sense to have an article about him preserved in an encyclopedia, and needs to provide neutral, third-party reliable sources of the sort called for in the guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really appreciate your patience here. I've added a score of new links from some of these international sources. Also I think his role in helping to shape national health policy (both as an advisor to the Surgeon General of the Navy and with President Obama) should not be overlooked in this process. --Kalipoli (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think Wikipedia needs to turn into another social networking site for candidates to advertise their campaign. Not a good idea at all. He is a veteran which is honorable but he has done nothing notable beyond that. This page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.148.185 (talk • contribs) — 68.83.148.185 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per nominator no significant mentions in third party sources and candidate fails WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klevis Bejtja[edit]

Klevis Bejtja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No assertion of notability made in the article as the league isn't fully professional Spiderone 15:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 15:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 15:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per Spiderone and GiantSnowman. No assertion of notability and the league isn't professional. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erald Turdiu[edit]

Erald Turdiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as the Albanian Superliga isn't fully professional. I know this article says he's a "professional football player" but this needs to be proved ideally. Spiderone 15:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 15:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. You can still be a professional footballer, even if you play in a semi-pro league, but ATHLETE says the league must be fully-pro, which the Albanian Superliga isn't. GiantSnowman 15:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per Spiderone and GiantSnowman. No assertion of notability and the league isn't professional. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Please delete this inocent animals killer. This is an excellent exemple of non-enciclopedic text. FkpCascais (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This has now been redirected, since the topic is relevant, there is no reason for deletion, discuss content on the talkpage. Tone 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiangle Light Scattering (MALS) and Differential Light Scattering (DLS)[edit]

Multiangle Light Scattering (MALS) and Differential Light Scattering (DLS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

1. This page already exists in the form Static Light Scattering.

2. It also already exists in the form Multi-Angle Light Scattering (which is really an introduction that duplicates the Static Light Scattering page).

3. The topic Differential Light Scattering is confusing. It is not a common light scattering technique. If the topic does merit an article in Wikipedia, the topic merits its own page.

4. The initials in the title are confusing (MALS and DLS). The initial DLS is more frequently used for dynamic light scattering.

5. The article is primarily commercial, focusing on the efforts of the Wyatt company.

6. The references are specialized, vanity references.

7. The original author, Wyatttech has not resolved any of these issues. Promised images have not been supplied. It is no longer reasonable to expect that they will be resolved.

LightScatteringGuy (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 15:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and discuss a merge, if necessary through WP:Dispute Resolution. AfD is not for editing questions, but probably we should start with a single good article. It is obvious there is relevant material here that is not in the other two articles--the history section,for example. Additionally, I at least, though certainly not an expert--it's been quite a while since I took the course in this--find the first 4 paragraphs of the theory section here , the part before the mathematics, here a good deal more informative than anything in the DLS article. On the other hand, the mathematics, and data analysis parts on the Static light scattering article, are much better. The separate Multi-angle light scattering article should probably be merged in as an introduction. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The history section is biased in favor of a single company. Note the links. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • What do you mean when you write "DLS article" in your sentence about the theory? Do you mean dynamic light scattering? The math in dynamic light scattering is very different than what is written here. This article confuses a well-established technique (dynamic light scattering) with a much more minor technique (differential light scattering). And that confusion is part of why this article should not exist (my point 3). LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why do you think the issues with the article will be fixed now? They were not fixed after the first deletion discussion (the article was proposed for speedy deletion, which was removed) and move/merge discussion (move/merge was discussed on the talk page, but not implemented). LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all the raised problems have been fixed (by myself) within one minute. Afd is not an instrument for article improvement. On (1,2) Existence of several articles on subtopics of one field is not a reason for Afd - this one is strong enough to stand on its own. Multi-Angle Light Scattering was a stub which I merged into this article. Other mergers, if feasible are to be discussed elsewhere. (3) is not an Afd issue. The author has apparently proved by his references and discussion at talk page that this topic is notable. Afd is not an instrument to resolve scientific discussions (4) is fixed. (5) is unjustified. (6) defies WP:RS (7) Does not apply here. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article looks like it can stand at the moment. However, has anyone made an effort to determine if the original version was copied from elsewhere? It looks suspiciously like a patent application. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argument against deletion of Multiangle Light Scattering[edit]

It is surprising why so much effort has been expended to have this article deleted rather than improved. All known objections are addressed below, however, it should be noted that the scientific community has been much better served by those who have taken the initiative to edit the article rather than constantly nominate it for deletion:

1. This page does not already exist in the form of Static_Light_Scattering. This argument was refuted in the original discussion regarding deletion. SLS is a physical phenomenon while MALS is a method by which SLS is measured, and in particular, a method by which SLS measurements may be used to characterize molecules and particles.

• The nominator does not agree with the refutation, hence the current process. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. While Multi-angle light scattering does address some issues, the present article is much more complete. As Materialscientist suggested, the Multi-angle Light Scattering article was a stub which has been expertly merged into this article.

• The stub remained persistently unmerged until the deletion process began. While Materialscientist claims that a deletion proposal is not a mechanism to improve an article, the empirical evidence is the opposite. By the time this article is fixed, it will look astonishingly like the static light scattering article. I waited in vain to see if others would find a different path to fix the article and prove me wrong. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Lightscatteringguy’s point here (and in point 4) is very valid. Differential Light Scattering is an antiquated term (as addressed in the article) and should not have been included in the title. Editing by wikiusers has remedied this issue. The term itself within the article, however, is justified, as for a time it was a term of art and thus aids in the disambiguation between Dynamic Light Scattering and a MALS technique to which many references have been made in articles in the late 20th century.

• Differential Light Scattering without the DLS abbreviation is much more clear. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. As mentioned in #3 above, the use of DLS as an acronym for the antiquated term Differential Light Scattering could be considered confusing. This is another proper argument for the editing of the article – not for its deletion.

• see above. I do not see much merit in editing an article that should not exist. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. The article is not primarily commercial in nature. There amounts to one entire sentence in the article dedicated explicitly to Wyatt instrumentation. While other references are made, it is indisputable that Wyatt played an important part in the development and commercialization of MALS instrumentation and analysis. To say that references to the company which aided in the innovation and development of the technique amount to a commercial entry is like saying that references it International Business Machines are inappropriate in the discussion of photocopying. It should be added that many references to other institutions who also pioneered MALS instrumentation are made in the article, and if there are innovations not cited, for example more references to Brookhaven Instruments, the article should be edited to include them, rather than constantly nominating the article for deletion. It should be noted that the article has been properly edited to include relevant information by developers and manufacturers of competing instrumentation, which only adds to the value of the entry.

• Let us see what other editors have to say about this topic. Some disinterested admin will need to make that decision (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed). LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Admittedly, the point about vanity references is not fully understood. All articles are originally penned by a single individual, and said individual has the experience of her/his own experience. If other references are valid, they should be added, but it cannot be held against the author that s/he has not read every article on a given subject and is instantly required to recall and reference them. Each citation is relevant and supports the discussion appropriately.

• Well, reference 18 was created as the basis of a few advertising campaigns and would be better served by citing, for example Chemical Abstracts. I cannot figure out why reference 13 is relevant. Also, see smokefoot's discussion on references and conflict of interest on the article discussion page. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. The article has been edited, but is it truly the sole duty of the original author to improve wiki articles? Previous arguments have been addressed, and it had been thought, satisfactorily. However the efforts of a single wiki-user/editor to have this article deleted rather than improved has proven problematic. The issue of the figures is an unfortunate one. The originally intended images have been delayed (some indefinitely) as it is not yet certain which would meet the strict Wikipedia copyright requirements. References to the figures no longer appear in the article, but may be replaced if/when it is believed that the relevant figures are available and deemed to satisfy the wiki-requirements.

• I have submitted two deletion requests. The first was removed without discussion, which is consistent with how I understand the rules. This is the second, and to my understanding "real" discussion. And, I did not submit the second until others were given a chance to change the direction of the article. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues raised in this discussion: The history section favors a single company: This is believed to be untrue, as addressed in section 5 above. Further, if there is history relevant to the development of MALS instrumentation and measurement, the article should be amended to include it. Dynamic Light Scattering is distinct from MALS, and the equivalency of DLS to “differential light scattering” no longer appears in the article. This article is original, however, it was penned initially for Wikipedia by an experienced patent agent, which may explain why Slawomir Bialy notices the similarity. It is believed that the above arguments address all of the outstanding issues relating to this article. These arguments, along with edits made to the article by other users, should put to rest the desire to have the entry deleted. It is therefore requested that the deletion consideration be removed. If it is still the belief of the objector that the article be removed, the decision will absolutely be appealed.

• I note that the deletion template has been removed from the article. But, it seems early (the discussion should last 7 days). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed. While I am anxious that a full discussion take place, I have not withdrawn the submission. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article has its merits and merger may be a sensible option to preserve its valid components. Rosser Gruffydd 21:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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