< 14 September	16 September >

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

The result was Nominator agreed to userfy. Ikip (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inventory cost management[edit]

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

"Inventory cost management" is a term in use (nearly a quarter of a million Ghits) but if we need an article on the subject, this isn't it. It would require a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. PROD removed by author. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:42, 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. Tone 18:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butler dustpan[edit]

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

The prod was contested. I found zero sources for this. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as seemingly pure nonsense. Sure, if you try hard enough the sentences work, but there are no sources to back up what little it says. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under ~~G1. This is nonsense if I've ever seen it. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)~~ OK, actually not nonsense, but not much of anything either. So how 'bout A1 instead of G1, then? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 06:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be sources to substantiate the use of the term "silent butler" to refer to a dustpan with a hinged lid; but I don't see the value of a redirect to Dustpan here, and there's clearly no material in the article suitable for merging there, so delete. Deor (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not leave it be. I have worked in the food service industry for most of my life and it is a commoon term. one that many people may not associate. it is worth the little bit of webspace, for the moments enlightment. Let the Butler stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirate888 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The account commenting above (User:Pirate888) would seem to be a sockpuppet of this article's creator (User:Kevo282), since he/she just created a user page for the latter account. Deor (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The comments on the talk page suggest the intended direction of the article is towards a dictionary definition rather than an encyclopaedia article, but I can't find any sources that meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion (i.e. durably archived uses (see use-mention distinction) of the word with this meaning), so a transwiki is not appropriate. What I have found however is that there is a company called "Butler Home Products", frequently referred to as just "Butler", that make various cleaning products, including the type of dustpan referred to here. All the uses I can find of the word "butler" in relation to a dustpan turn out to be referring to a dustpan made by Butler Home Products. Other than the promised (but not yet extant) picture, I cannot see any value in merging the content here to dustpan, nor a value in redirecting to there. If Butler Home Products is notable enough for an article (I have not checked) then a redirect to there would not, imo, be inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A "dustpan on a stick" is just a long handled dustpan, isn't it? The "silent butler" mentioned earlier doesn't seem to relate to the description on the page. MorganaFiolett (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced at best, sources not only aren't listed, they don't seem to exist. Edward321 (talk) 02:29, 22 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. Tone 18:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zele Ismail[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another youth footballer who clearly doesn't meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can this not be deleted under ((db-g4))? Eddie6705 (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Just looked at the logs and it was deleted through speedy after it was first deleted. Therefore db-g4 isn't applicable. Delete per Spiderone and nom. Eddie6705 (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youth caps don't make him notable Spiderone 10:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:08, 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 Nominator agreed to redirect to Down (band). Ikip (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Down IV[edit]

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

Speculative, rumored album release. Based on last update, recording has not even begun. Since album title is also rumored, should wait on this one until confirmation of an actual release. Wolfer68 (talk) 22:12, 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. Tone 18:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BrainWare Safari[edit]

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

Very long and spammy write-up about a piece of software with no evidence of notability. I am also nominating the publishers, Learning Enhancement Corporation for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is pure adspam. Even if the product turned out to be notable, it would be better to write a neutral article from scratch than to try to do anything with this bloated piece of puffery. Looie496 (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:19, 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. Tone 18:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Enhancement Corporation[edit]

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

Company profile written by someone with an obvious COI. I am also nominating for deletion their article about their BrainWare Safari program. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two lines in references - since removed by me - don't even mention the company in the article. This sounds like spam. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to establish independent coverage of this company. Looie496 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:39, 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. Tone 18:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to find the force of wind from a fan[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTGUIDE. Airplaneman ^talk 22:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, how-to, math advice. Hairhorn (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written how-to. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Airplaneman, written purely as a "how-to" guide. The title alone says that. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not even a transwiki. Echoing everyone else here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no encyclopaedic value New seeker (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the above, plus it's original research. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:52, 22 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.--Giants 27(c|s) 15:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradon Godfrey[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete, fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG per this good faith search. Giants27 (c|s) 22:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 22:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 22:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A search of Newsbank and other sources turns up extensive coverage on Godfrey, who was the leading receiver and a key special teams player on Utah's 2007 undefeated team. He also was a leader of the 2008 team that went to the Sugar Bowl. He is also identified as one of the leading receivers in school history. In terms of feature coverage of Godfrey (as opposed to team or game coverage), I found at least five feature stories as follows: (1) The doors of opportunity Layton's Godfrey saviors senior season with unbeaten Utah, Standard-Examiner (Ogden, UT), September 23, 2008; (2) Utah: Godfrey's effort sets him apart, The Salt Lake Tribune (UT), September 11, 2007; (3) Godfrey's great hands, confidence help Utes, Standard-Examiner (Ogden, UT), December 17, 2006; (4) Walk-on now one of Utes' best receivers, Salt Lake Tribune, August 19, 2006; (5) Former Ute Bradon Godfrey signs with Atlanta Falcons, The Daily Utah Chronicle, June 8, 2009. Cbl62 (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep College football is tough, because it's unquestionably more notable than the college equivalents of the other three major North American sports (only basketball comes close), but yet it's still not necessarily satisfactory of WP:ATHLETE. Yet it's also the sport where it's most possible to be a major star in college and not even make the pro league at all. If Gino Torretta or Ron Dayne had flopped to the point where they never even made the NFL, would they be notable? Maybe. Hard to say. Godfrey seems to have been a star college player per the links given by Cbl62 (though obviously not a Heisman winner like Torretta and Dayne), but I'm not entirely convinced that's enough. Deletion per failure of ATHLETE wouldn't bother me at all. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Perhaps a better example is Jason White (American football), who indeed never played in the NFL. Strictly speaking, I don't think he satisfies ATHLETE (though the Heisman would get him past the GNG). Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 09:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ernie Davis is another example, although it would be difficult to make a non-notability case against his article for a number of reasons, of which the Heisman is just one.Rlendog (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was a member of the Utah's 2007 undefeated team. He also was a key part of the 2008 team that went to the Sugar Bowl and defeated Alabama. He participated in the 2009 NFL Preseason, so he plyed at least a game and was in two teams: Baltimore and Atlanta--Zta ♠talk♠ September 15, 2009 ♠Nastia '♣
- Just a note, preseason counts don't count towards WP:ATH only regular season games do.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Admittedly, it doesn't actually say that. In any case, I would hope that post-season games count as much as regular season games do. Rlendog (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah post-season too.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Essentially, all non-exhibition NFL games.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since football is not an Olympic sport, the highest amateur level would seem to be college football. Not that every walk on is notable, but a star on an undefeated team that played in a major bowl game would seem to qualify. In any case, the feature stories found by Cbl62 seem to satisfy WP:N, regardless of any WP:ATH issues. Rlendog (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Lorenzen[edit]

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

Non-notable practice squad player, fails WP:ATH. Giants27 (c|s) 21:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, maybe userfy~~ Keep per Cbl62. ~~Assuming that practice squad players don't qualify, he doesn't pass WP:ATH yet, but he probably will.~~ He had a fairly successful career at UConn, and ~~if someone were~~ now that Cbl62 has been motivated enough to dig, ~~they might be able to make a case for him on~~ I agree that he qualifies on general WP:GNG grounds.~~, maybe not. But he may well end up on a roster somewhere soon enough, so userfication would be OK with me.~~ By the way, at least according to the Newark Star-Ledger[1], he and Jared are not related.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep - This is not a vote on whether NFL practice players are notable. A college football player is notable regardless of whether he ever plays in the NFL if he meets general notability requirements. If there is significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media, he meets notability standards. Lorenzen meets that standard by miles. A search of the Newsbank database reveals well over 100 articles which focus on Lorenzen as their main topic. The guy was a finalist for the Unitas Award and has had articles written comparing him to Tim Tebow. An incomplete list of the articles focusing principally on Lorenzen include the following: (1) HUSKIES QB FIRST WENT TO IOWA ST., LORENZEN'S ROUTE TO UCONN INCLUDED STINT AT COMMUNITY COLLEGE, The Charlotte Observer (NC), December 27, 2007; (2) Juco transfer Lorenzen brings stability to surprising UConn Huskies, Associated Press Archive, October 30, 2007; (3) Lorenzen brings stability to surprising Huskies, Charleston Gazette (WV), October 31, 2007; (3a) Lorenzen, UConn overwhelm Maine, The Boston Globe, September 9, 2007; (4) Lorenzen stars in first start, leads Connecticut to 45-14 win over Duke, Associated Press Archive, September 1, 2007; (5) Lorenzen settles in as UConn's No. 1 QB, Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, August 18, 2007; (6) Lorenzen named starting quarterback at UConn, Associated Press Archive, August 14, 2007 (also published in Westerly Sun from Rhode Island); (7) Lorenzen's on his way, All-American QB signs letter of intent with UC, The Day (New London, CT), December 21, 2006; (8) Lorenzen finalist for Unitas Award, The Chronicle (Willimantic, CT), June 14, 2008; (9) UConn Has Its Own Tebow?, Louisville coach says Lorenzen is the Big East's version of the Florida QB, The Bristol Press (CT), September 24, 2008; (10) Is it a passing resemblance?: UConn's Lorenzen compared to Florida's Heisman winner Tebow, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), September 24, 2008 (article also published in New Haven Register and The Hartford Courant); (11) Lorenzen has NFL eyes watching, Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, CT), March 28, 2009; (12) Lorenzen finishes college dream: Former Eddyville-Blakesburg quarterback guides Huskies in International Bowl, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), January 3, 2009 (13) Different uniform, same pressure Summer internship in world of finance put Lorenzen's decision-making skills to test, Journal Inquirer (Manchester, CT), August 27, 2008; (14) LORENZEN TAKES CONTROL QB CAN FOCUS ON TEAM, NOT JOB, The Hartford Courant (CT), March 21, 2008; (15) HUSKIES CONNECT WITH LORENZEN, The Hartford Courant (CT), September 2, 2007; (16) Lorenzen still the man for UConn, Unlike last three springs, Huskies will not have a quarterback controversy, The Bristol Press (CT), March 11, 2008; (17) RIGHT WAY, RIGHT AWAY, LORENZEN MADE IMMEDIATE IMPACT, The Hartford Courant (CT), December 28, 2007; (18) Right Way, Right Away: Lorenzen Made Immediate Impact, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), December 28, 2007; (19) Lorenzen's 'it' initially hard to predict, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), December 16, 2007 (same article also published in Connecticut Post); (20) Lorenzen finds groove, has fun in rout, Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, CT), September 13, 2008; (21) Lorenzen back at right time as Huskies travel to So. Florida, Norwich Bulletin (CT), November 23, 2008; (22) Lorenzen starts, leads UConn, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), November 16, 2008; (23) Huskies' QB Lorenzen close to being back under center, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), November 12, 2008 (same article published in multiple newspapers including Bristol Press, New Haven Register, Norwich Bulletin, and Register Citizen); (24) Lorenzen goes from starter to 'coach', Journal Inquirer (Manchester, CT), October 9, 2008; (25) Lorenzen remains upbeat, Republican-American (Waterbury, CT), October 9, 2008; (26) Lorenzen will miss 6-8 weeks, Record-Journal (Meriden, CT) - September 30, 2008; (27) Lorenzen's collegiate career may be over, Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, CT) - September 27, 2008; (28) Lorenzen lost with broken foot, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - September 27, 2008 (same article published in multiple newspapers including New Haven Register); (29) UConn QB Lorenzen to miss at least six weeks, The Sports Network (USA) - September 27, 2008; (30) UConn Football: Louisville wary of Lorenzen's ability to run with the ball, Norwich Bulletin (CT) - September 24, 2008; (31) Lorenzen's running helps make up for turnovers, College football: University of Connecticut, The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT) - September 24, 2008; (32) Advice pays off for Lorenzen, The Chronicle (Willimantic, CT) - September 16, 2008; (33) Lorenzen seeks redemption against Temple, Republican-American (Waterbury, CT) - September 3, 2008; (34) Despite win, Lorenzen has work to do: Senior quarterback threw 3 picks in Huskies' season-opening win, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - August 30, 2008 (same article published in multiple papers); (35) Lorenzen solidifies starting QB job, Republican-American (Waterbury, CT) - August 14, 2008; (36) Lorenzen back as Huskies' top QB, The News-Times (Danbury, CT) - August 9, 2008; (37) Lorenzen aching to get better, The Advocate (Stamford-Norwalk, CT) - August 5, 2008; (39) Lorenzen can do job, but wants to do more, Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, CT) - August 2, 2008; (40) Who looks forward to 2-a-days? As 2nd year starter, Lorenzen ready to go, Journal Inquirer (Manchester, CT) - August 1, 2008; (41) Lorenzen On Watch List For QB Award, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - June 13, 2008; (42) Lorenzen out of Blue-White, Journal Inquirer (Manchester, CT) - April 18, 2008; (43) UConn's Lorenzen To Miss Scrimmage, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - April 13, 2008; (44) Injured 'klutz' Lorenzen may miss spring game, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - April 13, 2008; (45) UConn QB Lorenzen More Settled: QB Can Focus On Team, Not Job, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - March 21, 2008; (46) Lorenzen clear-cut choice at quarterback, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - March 11, 2008 (same article also in multiple papers); (47) Lorenzen right at home at UConn, Norwich Bulletin (CT) - November 4, 2007; (48) Lorenzen at center of Huskies' turnaround: QB has led UConn to three come-from-behind wins, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - November 2, 2007; (49) Commanding The Troops: Lorenzen Leads Huskies To Succesful First Half Of Season, The Daily Campus (University of Connecticut) (Storrs, CT) - October 19, 2007; (50) Lorenzen Leads Charge for Huskies, The Daily Campus (University of Connecticut) (CT) - September 24, 2007; and (51) ATHLETE OF THE WEEK: Lorenzen Throws For 298 yards In Huskies' 45-14 Thumping of Duke, The Daily Campus (University of Connecticut) (Storrs, CT) - September 5, 2007; (52) Lorenzen, UConn keep Duke in dark, Boston Herald (MA) - September 2, 2007; (53) Lorenzen will be Huskies' lead dog, Record-Journal (Meriden, CT) - August 15, 2007; (54) Top junior college QB headed to UConn, 6-5, 225-pound Lorenzen verbally commits to play for Huskies, The Day (New London, CT) - December 12, 2006; (55) QUARTERBACK QUEST, LORENZEN ROLLING OUT FOR UCONN OPPORTUNITY, The Hartford Courant (CT) - December 20, 2006. Cbl62 (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow, how'd I miss that.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tyler is Jared Lorenzen younger brother and he did have some major exposure at UConn, but he still not on a active roster. He fell off tremendously after his college career but is still notable. Ositadinma (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of New Orleans Saints Practice Squad. .--Zta ♠talk♠ September 15, 2009 ♠Nastia '♣
- PS guys are not inherently notable.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Per sources provided by Cbl62, it'd be nice for those to be added to the article. Could be a very nice article with them.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 21:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 21:55, 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. I appreciate that A Nobody has at least made an attempt to improve this article, but unfortunately - as many editors have pointed out below - it's turned into what is effectively a random collection of information about topics that in some cases are only tangentally connected, and about which we already have perfectly serviceable articles. In other words, a multiple content fork, and thus redundant. Black Kite 20:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lamia (Vampire Folk lore)[edit]

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

An in-universe, unreferenced narrative about supposedly legendary vampires. Delete as unencyclopedic. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To judge by the mention of Maya in the article, this would seem to be about the creatures in the Night World series of books. I think that the topic is sufficiently treated at Night World#Vampires (along with a mention at Greek mythology in popular culture#Lamia); and since nothing in this article is sourced, none of it is suitable for a merger to the main article. There's certainly nothing of authentic folklore here. Deor (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~clearly somebody's personal essay.~~ Re-affirming Delete after article updates. Fences and Windows' comment below perfectly explains the faults with this rewrite and why the article is still completely unnecessary. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upon actually looking for sources, I have found that "Lamia" is indeed mentioned in books at some length, such as here, here, etc. Clearly improvable in some capacity. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article at Lamia (mythology). This article isn't about what your sources are talking about. Extremely sincerely, Deor (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine any reason (because none exists) why we would not at worst redirect then to the locations mentioned above. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that no one would type that sequence of characters into the search box. Capiche? Deor (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who created or worked on the article apparently would. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that's one person. The others who worked on the article most probably found it through NPP, CSD, ... We don't keep redirects for improbable search terms. Fram (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete mergeable and verifiable topics either per WP:PRESERVE and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fictional topic and unlikely search term. Drawn Some (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion, especially when it concerns a notable topic from Greek myth that is indeed a likely search term. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If, by that, you mean "an essay suggests that saying 'non-notable' on its own, which Drawn Some did not do, is considered a weak argument", then I'd agree wholeheartedly. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*strong keep per A Nobody's research showing this article is notableIkip (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, do you ever say 'Keep' without 'Strong'?? Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious merge into Lamia (mythology) where it would form a good section on the vampire aspects of the myth. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please detail what content you think should be merged. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge as the Colonel suggests. But Drawn Some is correct that the NightWorld material is of inappropriate length either here or in the merged article, though it should be mentioned in the appropriate section of the Greek Mythology ip article. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Lamia (mythology). connected material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no content that adds to the encyclopedia. We already have good articles on the Keats poem and the mythology, which don't need polluting with unrelated content, and we have a section for mentions of Lamia in popular culture here:Greek mythology in popular culture#Lamia. Details of the use of Lamia in Night World are already well covered in that article. No redirect, as the title is not a plausible search. Fences&Windows 21:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pernom, percruft. This is a heap of plot regurgitation from whatever young-adult junk-book; unencyclopædic. And the rescue effort amounts to a disruptive attempt to fork material from Lamia (mythology) (a fine looking article that will not benefit from anything here) for the purpose of keeping *everything*. Nods at arguments by R'n'B, Deor, Fences and windows. Do *not* redirect this ludicrous title; 'Folk lore' is one word. Moar sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is now about how a type of vampire(which is a fictional entity) has been portrayed throughout the ages, starting with thousands of years ago. The original article was about something else, just one aspect of a modern series. It now list stories about Lamia through many sources, from thousands of years ago to the present. Dream Focus 19:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The rewrite by A Nobody is well-meaning but misguided. It now melds together three things, Lamia as defined by the Greeks, Lamia from Keats, and Lamia in Night World, which don't belong together. We already have articles on those three things, as I've explained, and if we want readers to navigate between the concepts we use wikilinks and disambiguation page like Lamia rather than creating content forks. There is no purpose served to the reader by the existence of this article; I hate deletionism too, but keeping this article does not help improve the encyclopedia one iota. Fences&Windows 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this assessment completely. We already have articles on all the individual meanings of Lamia and they are easy to find via the DAB page. This page serves absolutely no purpose. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 01:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to areas suggested above. The reasons to delete no longer apply:
Response to delete vote 1: Article is no longer entirely in-universe, nor unreferenced. Moreover, as the topic appears in numerous published encyclopedias and in the specific context of vampire folklore, it cannot properly be called “unencyclopedic” (a term that my spell check underlines in red as not a real word anyway).

Response to delete vote 2: Article is no longer only about Night World and because it is now expanded and sourced actually can be merged to the indicated areas of other coverage, which could indeed benefit from additional sourced material.

Response to delete vote 3: Regardless of how the article started out, it is now written and revised by multiple editors and thus not a “personal essay” by any stretch of the phrase. Moreover, indiscriminately saying to delete everything and being closed minded to never argue to keep are not compelling here.

Response to delete vote 4: Possible retaliation for an ANI thread I started that gained consensus about this user following another around, but in any event, a concept that appears in the work of major authors and is analyzed and discussed in published books cannot be deemed “non-notable” by even the most restrictive definitions of this subjective and elitist concept that we have seen on Wikipedia. And given that searching for Lamia with vampire and folklore gets many hits on Google News even and that someone saw fit to create an article, it is indeed a likely search term.

Response to delete vote 5: Again, article has been revised dramatically since this comment and now has mergeable content. Plus, see above for reasons to redirect at worst.

Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - Article has plenty of references, so I don't see any valid deletion reason. Rray (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rray, did you even read my comments? My argument for deletion doesn't rest on notability or sources. A Nobody, if you have found new sources that other articles lack, go and add them in to the appropriate part of those articles; that doesn't require a merge! Trying to salvage this page to avoid deletion by forcing a merge creates a complete dog's dinner. Vaguely calling for a merge is no help. Precisely what material should be merged, to which articles, and how? To which article should this redirect? Lamia? How is "Lamia (Vampire folklore)" even a useful redirect? This kind of indiscriminate inclusionism is just as unhelpful as indiscriminate deletionism. Sometimes material is redundant and not worth keeping - we should put this article out of its misery. Fences&Windows 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reasons to keep:

There is currently something of a vampire craze thanks to Twilight and True Blood. As such, it is entirely reasonable that our readers will come here looking for all sorts of information on vampires and thus someone who comes across "Lamia" in the context of vampires in any of the various works of fiction is entirely possible to do a search for "Lamia vampire" or "Lamia (vampire)" or in this case "Lamia (vampire folklore)" rather than "Lamia (mythology)". Given that an editor created the page with such a name further proves that being the case.
Per WP:PRESERVE, the article is not a hoax, not libelous, nor a copy vio. Rather, it concerns a notable subject and features mergeable information verified through reliable sources. There is therefore no pressing need in deleting its edit history. By contrast, there is no harm in humoring those who do find this cited information useful in keeping it for the sake of either future expansion or at least out of the convenience of a redirect.
Our first pillar is that we are not merely a general encyclopedia, but also a specialized one. SEVERAL specialized encyclopedias on folklore and vampires contain entries on "Lamia", i.e. Lamia is deemed encyclopedic by real world publishers specifically in the context of vampires and folklores. The paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit thus can at least be consistent with multiple print encyclopedias as confirmed on Google Books.
The other articles cited above merely focus on certain aspects on this topic, specifically in Greek myth, in Romantic poetry, and in Night World. The disambugation page just contains links. This article, by contrast charts the development of the concept from ancient to Medieval to early modern and to Modern times. Think of the individual articles or sections of articles as say articles covering a battle or specific period in history, whereas this article provides the overview of the whole war and puts the big picture in context. Those links on the disambugation page are the trees. This article is the forest. I can probably come up with some more metaphors, but you get the idea!
I have thus far revised this article using only some of the sources found on Google Books; I am beyond convinced that greater potential exists here and given all the articles currently nominated for deletion that I could potentially help with, I would not make such a strong case for this one were I not absolutely certain that further potential exists for this concept independent of the potential merge locations (I have been reading and researching vampires since elementary school...no kidding).
As for potential merges, here is a start, but again, this topic provides the general overview for how the concept of Lamia within vampiric folklore evolved from Ancient Greece into later civilizations and as used in current works of fiction. It is convenient for readers to get a sense of these developments as a whole for at least comparative purposes in one article with brief summaries of each change that to play games sifting through multiple articles.

Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge Taking a look at the article as first nominated for deletion, I can understand the nominator's valid concerns. However, through some laudable work by interested editors, the noms concerns have been addressed and Wikipedia now has an encyclopedic and well-sourced article on a valid topic... mythical, legendary, or not. The mythos of Vampire has been long seen in culture all over the world... and it is only within the last 150 years or so when most of the world's cultures have accepted Vampire as fictional and not actual. The topic is suitable for inclusion, and at the very least might be considered for merging to Vampire. However, I believe the article now has the sttrength to stand on its own legs. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Fence and Windows' comment above you a bit. There are already articles for all the usages contained in this article. This sloppy cleanup effort did nothing more than create a pointless content fork. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 22:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then might it not make more sense to have the bits and pieces which are spread around in other articles together in one place? Or merged into one article? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. You're an experienced editor - you know we use DAB pages and one already exists for this topic. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 16:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're an experienced editor yourself, thank you. For me it's a bit tough to deal in absolutes when every guideline page has instructions that encourage the careful consideration of exceptions that could serve to improve the project. In looking at the existing DAB page... I see links to Lamia (mythology)... a Greek mythological female creature, Lamia of Athens... a courtesan, Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons).... a magical beast in Dungeons & Dragons, Lamia (city)... a city in Greece, Lamia (animal)... a mouse-like animal in New Guinea, Lamia (poem)... a poem by John Keats, Lamia (Stardust)... the main antagonist in the 2007 fantasy film Stardust played by Michelle Pfeiffer, and a link to a Lamia section in Cappadocian (World_of_Darkness). With respects, the DAB page does not take me to articles that cover Lamia in vampire folklore... nor any that do so with the depth that does this one. I believe we now have coherent and sourced content that could be merged to sections in Vampire folklore by region, with a redirect set after the merge of informations. Wouldn't you think a careful merge of some of the content to a article where such content has context and notability make sense? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge. This is a content fork. It's duplicate data. This is not a likely search term. Deletion is the best. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 18:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can perhaps agree to disagree. I've read Vampire folklore by region and the improved Lamia (Vampire Folk lore). Their is sourced information in 'Lamia (Vampire Folk lore)' that is not duplicative of information in 'Vampire folklore by region', and that would further improve 'Vampire folklore by region' by a careful merge. Personally, I think that that is where it best serves the project. Thanks much, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would have best served the project would have been A Nobody improving the other articles on Lamia and vampire folklore instead of trying to force a keep by inappropriately expanding this article then merging content from it. Expanding an article simply in order to merge the new content elsewhere is perverse, and looks like gaming the system. Fences&Windows 20:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if we were all elsewhere improving other articles, as AfDs too often involve time and effort that might be used elsewhere... and yes, I fully expect that this article will likely not exist a week from now. But as I wrote, I read the two and there is now some unique sourced information in this one that is not duplicative of information elsewhere. Sure, it would have accomplished the same thing more efficiently to have added the expanded material and its sourcing to other articles from the outset, thus eleviating any concerns or qualms about GFDL. But he did try to save this one first... and it is only the unique and non-duplicative informations that need merging. (modifying my keep opinion above to a merge) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of non-trivial coverage of this specific topic. There's plenty about lamia(s) and vampires, but this article is a hodgepodge of... stuff that happens to mix the two together. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be honest. Published books that specifically address Lamia in the context of vampirer folklore are indeed non-trivial coverage this specific topic. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can tell, none of the sources for this article address lamia in the context of vampire folklore in a non-trivial way. Several of them refer to the Lamia from Greek mythology (which already has an article) as having vampire-like characteristics, and speculate at that Lamia being a conceptually predecessor to vampires. The Graham Anderson book suggests in a passing parenthetical remark that a lamia is a vampire, but this is in a book about Philostratus, in a chapter about Philostratus' writing about Apollonius, in a section discussing elements of confusion and misunderstanding; it's a trivial mention which, while possibly worth mentioning in such an article, is clearly insufficient to establish the notability of lamia-as-vampire. The Keats poem (which already has an article) goes back to the Lamia of Greek myth, and is again mentioned as being vampire-like; saying that something is "like" something else implies that, although similar, it is not that thing. Then there is a very long, largely unsourced section on lamia as born vampires within the Night World books. The sourced portion of this is covered, with the same sources used, at Night World#Vampires. cmadler (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit down and Merge. Merge to Lamia_(mythology) article. Appears to be some encyclopedic, well-sourced info here. Artemis84 (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Fences and windows and Stifle. A mishmash of information about vampires that happen to be named Lamia. Borderline WP:SYN. Tim Song (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There's some good info here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fences & Windows. cmadler (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale: This deals with three separate things. It would be like putting 22 different Lexingtons into a single article called Lexington (US towns) because they're all towns in the US and they all have the same name. It would be silly in that case, and it is silly in this case. cmadler (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have looked at the sources in the article, and it is clear that they refer to the mythological Lamia. Attempting to distinguish between Lamia (mythology) and Lamia (Vampire Folk lore) is to draw a false and misleading picture of the situation. The Wikipedia policy being violated here is No original research. Abductive (reasoning) 01:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, its hard to see how information directly supported by reliable sources as original research.... or is it that the authors of those sources did original research for their own works? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do the sources say that 'Lamia as vampiric folklore' is a distinct topic from 'Lamia the mythological figure'? What is original research is this interpretation of the sources to support two Lamia articles. Abductive (reasoning) 05:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fences & Windows. The rewrite is all over the place and doesn't have a coherant topic. This information is better presented elsewhere in other articles. Them From Space 02:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, there is now information in the article that is not duplicative of information elsewhere. A merge of that non-duplicative information to Vampire folklore by region improves that second article. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is unfortunate that people work so hard to rescue articles when perfectly good merge targets already exist. I am really not sure why some people worry about the deletion of a little bit of text; if the ideas are valuable, then people should be directed on how best to contribute them. For example, User:TheVampireMerchant, the original author of the article, should have been told to userfy his/her essay, then to work collaboratively with other editors on adding sourced material to Vampire folklore by region and Lamia (mythology). Isn't it Wikipedia's purpose to be a collaboration, not a place to post essays? Abductive (reasoning) 05:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge, or redirect Abductive, many of the sources refer to the folkloric Lamia, not the ancient mythological one. I see no valid reason why not to redirect or merge per WP:PRESERVE. Ikip (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my interpretation. As I see it, the sources are very clear that there is only one Lamia. No sources say that there is a difference between a mythological Lamia and a folkloric one. In fact, the sources say the opposite; the myth of Lamia continued on/survived in later folklore. Really, what is the difference between myth and folklore anyway? Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems well written and well referenced. I dont know what the state was before the AFD, but it seems well referenced now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:40, 23 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. Tone 18:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Onfray[edit]

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

BLP tagged with needed sources since May and lacking in any that would demonstrate notability. COI, as the person was added as a source to a ton of articles in the past by accounts linked to this one, and major sockpuppeting was found. DreamGuy (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I cannot digest a single page of philosophic writing (and thus is quite useless in actually improving the article), may I remind you of substantial third-party coverage, both in scholarly papers and in the news. Widely cited, more widely criticized (reading the critics' exercise in sarcasm was actually funny). Sorry, no MTV awards. NVO (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a widely cited scholar, see [2]. Bearian (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Merely pointing to Google Scholar does not prove anything one way or another; for all we know all the listings are merely trivia mentions, which do not mean he meets the General notability criteria or WP:ACADEMIC as I read them. The bottom references might be enough to establish notability, but I'm having a hard time proving that they meet our sourcing criteria. I'm willing to go with keep simply because he's French, and thus English source checking will not prove notability necessarily. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive list of publications, some good references given for sources already, and a considerable list of additional good sources in the frWP. Coverage in the relevant language WP is not proof of notability, as all of them have different standards, but at the least its always worth checking for possible references--if the article here was based on a translation of, many such translations as entered here tend to be incomplete & don't represent the whole article, especially difficult parts like references. That it's also in such Wikipedias as deWP with high standards certainly helps. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 22 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) 11:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libertas Romania[edit]

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

The activities of "Libertas Romania" were so trivial as not to merit our attention, outside perhaps a line in the main Libertas.eu article. In essence, someone from Libertas approached a businesswoman and failed politician (her main claim to fame having been placing fourth, with 2.3% of the vote, in the 2004 Bucharest mayoral race) to run in the 2009 European elections; she declined. The end. No funds were raised, no candidates run, no organisation registered with the authorities, not even a working Twitter or Facebook page (despite the links). Biruitorul ^Talk 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough (no?) seperate content to warrant a new article.--Patton123 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even sure this topic is notable enough to merit redirect/mention in the Libertas.eu. Dahn (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Unless there are sources in Romanian that I don't see, this topic is not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 14:27, 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. no consensus (actually no one proposed deletion) for deletion JForget 12:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation Army of Chameria[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Liberation Army of Chameria

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

No proof of existence of Organization I Pakapshem (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the article are biased and ureliable and nowhere do they prove the existence of the organization. Organization is a clear greek fabrication in order to undermine the Cham Issue.

Keep: The term exist [[3]]. No reason for deletion.Alexikoua (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the term exists among greek nationalist with a clear agenda to undermine the Cham issue. Absolutely no reliable or unbiased source and proof on the existence of UCC.--I Pakapshem (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:One of the sources is Gregory Copley and He advises a number of governments, often at head-of-state level, on these issues.He is as reliable as it gets regarding sourcesMegistias (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is reliably sourced. The claim below that the source doesn't actually prove the existence of the organization is ludicrous. A classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of a well-known ultra-nationalist SPA. The fact that this is the 2nd nomination speaks volumes. --Athenean (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to point out Athenean where the source proves the existence? Care to cite the specific part? Otherwise the only ludicrous claim from a ultranationalist SPA here would be yours.--I Pakapshem (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory R. Copley,THE ROAD TO PEACE IN THE BALKANS IS PAVED WITH BAD INTENTIONS,Washington, DC, June 27, 2007,"What we saw with the Bush visit to Tirana was the emergence of the Albanian thrust — supported by both the Government of Albania and the KLA — of an Albanian sponsored group, the UCC,4 seeking secession for part of Greece, Epirus, known historically also as Chameria. The Cham people draw, to some extent, their identity from a community formed in the Epirus area of Greece by the Roman Army some two millennia ago. The reality today, however, is that the Chameria Liberation Army — the UCC — was formed by the KLA and is in fact a part of the quest for a “Greater Albania”, and its proponents have said as much.A delegation of the UCC on June 10, 2007, delivered a letter to President Bush during his visit to Tirana. The UCC letter referred to the existence of an Albanian minority in Western Greece (Epirus) and the UCC requested recognition of the “genocide of the Albanian Chamerians” allegedly conducted by the Greeks in the end of World War II, and to recognize “the right of the people to return to their homes in Greece from where they were expelled”, and “return their estate that was attached”,plus other nationalist requests.And a few weeks before President Bush’s arrival in Albania, UCC delegations delivered letters to the US embassies in Rome and Tirana. Albanian nationalist sentiment and protests increased, along with strong propaganda against the Greek minority in southern Albania, after the Bush visit to Tirana. The UCC, meanwhile, has been building its support base with demonstrations and events leading toward today — June 27, 2007 — the date that the Albanian Parliament in 1994 called the “Chameria national anniversary”. The presence of President Bush in Albania, then, and his statements supporting the independence of Kosovo, encouraged and triggered the extreme feelings of nationalist Albanians, who are also seeking independence in western FYROM, and the Greek region of Epirus. Indeed, the Albanian people have for decades, but increasingly in the past 15 or so years, been so distracted by leaders who have promised that they could, and should, have some of their neighbors’ wealth, that they have allowed those leaders to fail them in actually creating wealth and strength in Albania itself."

Your citation of Copley. Nowhere does he prove the existence of the UCC.

Other qoutes from Copley:

"As a result, not only Kosovo, but all of Albania and other Balkan communities have become captive of the criminal-political movements which owe their power to their alliance with al-Qaida, Iran, and the Saudi-funded Wahhabist movements."
"The Kosovo region is now a lawless area. It has been ethnically-cleansed of Serbs (more than 300,000 in the past five years), and re-populated by Albanians who have progressively and illegally, over the past decades, migrated into the area."
"The visit to Tirana by US President Bush signaled the start of an open season of expanded Albanian-backed terrorist and political activities in the region..."
His second conclusion: "As a result of the encouragement given to the Albanian expansionist cause, there will be continued dynamism in Albanian separatist, terrorist, and agitation movements throughout the Balkans, and a renewed confidence and vitality to Albanian criminal activities in narco-trafficking, human trafficking, and illegal arms trade through Europe"

Does he seem reliable to you folks?--I Pakapshem (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You see, reliable sources have been provided (and that was also the reason of the decision of the first nomination). It is indeed WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copley is definetly not reliable. Is the greek press reliable? I don't think so, not on this issue. And once again nowhere in any of the sources there is proof or confirmation of the actual existence of the organization. There are just arbitrary statements that make it seem as if the existence of such organization is common knowledge.--I Pakapshem (talk) 14:02, 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 redirect to List of Stuckist artists. Cirt (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Udaiyan[edit]

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

article been there for some time, but references not added. Featured on www.stuckism.com site, but no other suitable references. not enough for wp:notability Sargentprivate (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Sargentprivate (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Stuckist artists, where he is included as sources verify his membership per nom's link and here. There do not appear to be sufficient sources to justify a stand-alone article. Ty 09:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Stuckist artists, per Ty. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above to List of Stuckist artists...Modernist (talk) 00:10, 22 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) 11:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Radu[edit]

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

Sounds important, perhaps, but the lack of multiple independent sources covering the subject's life and work in depth indicates non-notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Google searches brought up nothing.--Patton123 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed. By the looks of it, non-notable and self-promotional. Dahn (talk) 04:00, 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) 11:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pantelimon at Şoseaua Iancului[edit]

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

There are 8,000 such buildings in Bucharest, with many more across Romania and indeed the whole of the former Eastern Bloc. That they happen to have 16 or 19 floors rather than 10 or 12 does not make them notable. For that, multiple, independent sources would be necessary, but these are wholly lacking. They are not among the tallest buildings in Bucharest; nor are they even the city's highest apartment bloc (that would be the Griviţa Bloc) or its largest (Apartment Building 63). No reason to keep, then. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the given references don't even seem work! What about the remaining entries in ((Tall buildings in Bucharest))? Most of those aren't really notable and merging them into an expanded version of List of tallest buildings in Bucharest might be much better. Nergaal (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's definitely something we should look into. I don't, for instance, see the Griro Tower as having much notability, beautiful though it may be. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - these are clearly not an independent topics, serve no encyclopedic purpose, and are clearly not backed by adequate referencing. They are clearly not notable even in a Romanian, nay, a Bucharest context. Merger into List of tallest buildings in Bucharest is worth considering, but let's remember that even that list has to end somewhere (I'm suddenly reminded of the joke about the Soviet dwarf being the tallest dwarf in the world). Dahn (talk) 03:54, 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 withdrawn by nominator after sources were found in the course of debate. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhapsodomancy[edit]

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

Non-notable form of divination. Notwithstanding WP:RECENTISM only reference is encyclopaedaia from 1700s and as no inline citations no way of verifying content which is referenced. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it's notable in the 1700s, it's notable today. Basic searches will find the concept used by Cornelius Agrippa and referred to John Wesley, so even if this isn't a widely used method of divination there's plenty to back up the brief assertion from the 1700s encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except, that's the problem, the only reference is for an out-of-print book, there is no in-line citations, there is no way to confirm that the term was in the encyclopaedia beyond your say-so.

The fact that something is not online does not make it an invalid source. You can't assume it was made up.--Milowent (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep. Aside from finding sources exist in a quick google book search, this article appears to be one of a slew of articles on diferent "mancy"s. Combining them would result in a huge, unwieldly article. --Milowent (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's in Britannica and appears to be present in at least two other scholarly references. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn but can we please get at least an in-line citation?Simonm223 (talk) 01:41, 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. Tone 18:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Solomon Identifier (RSID)[edit]

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

Essentially self-admitted WP:OR; a copy of a technical paper written by the user who posted it. Ironholds (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Perhaps some content could be merged into Reed–Solomon error correction, but this article doesn't supply enough context for a non-expert editor to do that. ReverendWayne (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article should not be deleted. It is an informative article about a digital technique used in world-wide amateur radio digital communication. Yes, the author created the technique but it has been implemented and used in a number of software applications used by radio operators for digital communications. / No, it should not be merged with Reed Solomon error correction. The use of RS is part of the name to provide a description of the technique. Rmerriam1948 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted without altering text. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Rmerriam1948 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong delete. Absolute lack of independent reliable sources, plus it is written at a level of technical detail above where Wikipedia articles should be. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research, unreferenced, self-promotion New seeker (talk) 12:22, 22 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: The prior nominations are not relevant in my view as they seem to be about different persons than the subject of this article. So they can be discounted entirely. As it turns out we have some socks here... it's Confirmed that

Marina BBS. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ==
Heili M. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

(I checked, also a few others but they don't appear involved here) Good hunch there, Dahn. So we can discount one of those if we're counting noses. But of course we don't count noses, or I would just have declared rough consensus to delete and that would be that. The arguments advanced to keep revolve around notability, as do the arguments advanced to delete. I examined the article and the sources provided, and was able to find the one of the books at Amazon, with a current sales rank of around 180,000. The notability just isn't there, though. The sources are self promotional, or blogs. Even the EB source is a blog, effectively. The arguments of Biruitorol, Hobartimus, Dahn, DGG, and Abductive make the case that Mr. Herman is not notable, better than the arguments of Michael Dormstein and the socks (no relation to Michael!!!) make the case that he is. Pretty clear cut in the end. Delete. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Herman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't tell if this is the same Dan Herman as in the second discussion; regardless, this one fails WP:BIO, for lack of multiple independent sources discussing him. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sigh: another one of those self-promotional entries we never get tired of. Maybe a salting is in order. Dahn (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as the 4th nomination for this article whose subeject is clearly not notable per WP:BIO. It will probably show up again with a different capitalisation or middle initial, etc., and it will be interesting to see what develops. Drawn Some (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not the same Dan Herman previously deleted. This current person being discussed is notable, article has been enhanced. Books and articles of this Herman were published in many top magazines and discussed about in other newspapers in English and Hebrew, some are not on the net. Heili M. (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See below - has Herman himself received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Moreover, I hope you do realise that the current text reads as blatant self-promotion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had a look at it, in the current version it has lots of independent sources Dan_Herman#Books Marina BBS. (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That someone has published books does not automatically confer notability upon him. Herman himself needs to be the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - see WP:GNG for that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I check a found numerous independent sources consistant with WP:GNG that review his book Outsmart the MBA Clones: Amazon top reviewers [4], Wayne Hurlbert on Blog Business World [5], Editors' Reviewz [6], Jack Yan [7] Marina BBS. (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And other sources discussing his concepts: Dan Herman noted that a successful differentiation has two defining characteristics (a) it is not imitated by others and (b) brings you unmistakable success with those who may join in to your program (buy your services). [8], and here (What's Next blog) [9]. and here - According to Dan Herman, PhD, “That is precisely why—if you really invest your efforts, and are truly innovative and make a major breakthrough in improving core benefits—do you know what will happen? They’ll imitate you at warp speed. You must understand that in that case, your competitors can’t allow themselves not to imitate you. You’d do exactly the same thing. on the LeeannMorse blog [10]. Marina BBS. (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, amazon.com reviews are not reliable sources; they breach WP:SPS. So do blogs, which is what all your other sources are. You should familiarise yourself with that policy as well: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable". Try finding "credible published materials with a reliable publication process" about Herman himself, as required by WP:RS and WP:GNG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi. Globes and Ynet are Israeli newspapaers that published stories and\or some of this person's articles - for example here [11] on his book on Globes and here [12] on Ynet (Yedioth Ahronoth). He is totally well known in Israel and Russia and other specific business communities. Heili M. (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also two universities consider him an expert in branding; ICFAI University and Bar-Ilan University, both independent institutions. I saw some articles officially published by Bar Ilan U, while visiting Bar Ilan. Heili M. (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And the reason we should take your word for his being "totally well known" and for seeing articles at Bar Ilan is...? Do see WP:BURDEN: "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As user Dahn said, promotional entry. Does not appear to be notable. Hobartimus (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've cut all of the self promotion. Right now the article is balanced and based on verifiable sources (see second paragraph). basically this man has invented a couple of cool business formulas that students relate to and search every so often. no need to delete. Michael Dormstein (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whichever Dan Herman this is, this looks to me like a promotional article for yet another creator of buzzword type concepts and books to be sold to business students and others who want careers telling people how to market stuff they usually don't understand. Doesn't look particularly notable. As there isn't a proper reference section, I've only looked at a couple of the links. One seems to be a blog, the other to one of Herman's books. I could be wrong overall. On the other hand, I quote 'I've cut all of the self promotion' - if so, I hate to think what it was like before. Peridon (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be worth while checking the contributions for all the "keep" voters above - it's very, very likely that the article's creator is sockpuppeteering, and all related new articles fall under the same suspicion of promotion as Dan Herman's entry. Dahn (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I quote from the second nomination "This page is unrelated to the previous deletion). It kind of looks like he's notable, but I can't find anything that qualifies under reliable sources. He's written books, but they're published by small presses. He's written articles, but they're published on small websites." Are there actually three Dan Hermans in this series? The first one appears to have been a Students' Union officer from the comments. Could someone who was present at the second discussion say if this is the same one? Peridon (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the business author who seems to be the subject of this particular artivcle seems a very minor one, and bases the notability on theworks being merely referred to in two college courses. This does not pass WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional in the extreme. No sign of commentary by disinterested third parties. Abductive (reasoning) 01:20, 23 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) 08:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaide Jones[edit]

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

Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE. I tried to find mention of her roles in films, etc. and only found wikipedia and other social media links. Can't find any reliable sources discussing it. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is currently unsourcable to anything other than her own pages. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete, no evidence of the personal claims to notability, the rest is claims by association. Nuttah (talk) 09:32, 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) 08:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite betrayal criterion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete per this discussion and per WP:G4. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per past conversations. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. - Altenmann >t 17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite assertions in previous discussions that this is well-known (even that "just the initials FBC will be immediately recognized and understood"), I don't see any evidence of it catching on in books, the news, scholarly journals, etc., nor do I see that Mike Ossipoff seems to be notable. If favorite betrayal criterion is something I should learn more about, this article sure doesn't help. Mandsford (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:49, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knicks–Rangers championship runs of 1994[edit]

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

Original research by synthesis. There is no inherent notability in the coincidence that an NBA and an NHL team representing the same city reached their respective league championship in the same season. The topic is effectively a mash-up of 1994 Stanley Cup Finals and 1994 NBA Finals with other irrelevancies thrown in - i.e.: who won the civic election that year. This article was nominated for deletion once before here, but was quickly redirected by the article creator, thus ending the deletion debate. Seems they have chosen to restore and move it to a new title, though it remains as non-notable today as it did a couple months ago. Also nominating Bulls–Blackhawks championship runs of 1992 for the same reasons. Reso lute 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This has already been redirected to the Madison Square Garden article, but I agree on the deletion quite aside from that it's sheer trivia. Come to that, there are a number of instances of multiple championships in the same city in the same year, and I can even think of a season off the top of my head where at least three teams from the same city made the league finals: 2007 in Boston, where the Patriots and the Red Sox won their respective championships and the Revolution made the title game. RGTraynor 17:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or 2009 with the Steelers/Pens. There's a limited number of sports towns in the US and the big 4 major pro sports leagues. There's a pretty good chance that in any given year, you'll have the same team playing in both. Heck, two years ago, we had the same matchup in the college football and basketball national title game. It's trivia...not an encyclopedic phenomenon. --Smashville^talk 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and there's been at least one time Texas won both the college baseball championship and was consensus #1 in football in the same year. No doubt someone sitting down with the annual lists of champions in the respective leagues could come up with several coincidences. RGTraynor 04:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to wit: CFL-NHL: Edmonton Oilers/Eskimos: 1990, 87, 82. There would be numerous Montreal Canadiens/Alouettes examples in the 50s. Reso lute 04:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Djsasso. --Smashville^talk 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect
Delete for reasons stated by RGTraynor. That said, I do give the author credit for his extensive, and dramatic, writing style, and am somewhat saddened that all his work appears headed for deletion. He could make a great career working in public-relations. -Sme3 (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Changing !vote to go with Metropolitan's suggestion. Apparently, we're voting on this [13], which an editor created, and then redirected to Madison Square Garden. I don't see anything in that article (which still exists in the history) that couldn't have been said in the articles about the NBA Knicks or the NHL Rangers. Finish it off. Mandsford (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This was previously nominated for deletion under a different title; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knicks–Rangers Finals series of 1994. I closed that AfD debate when the article creator changed the article to a redirect to Madison Square Garden. However, instead of leaving it as a redirect, the article creator went on to revert the article and continue to work on it -- occasionally interrupted by changing the article to a redirect to Madison Square Garden. In fact, it appears that the article creator has changed the article to a redirect, then reverted the redirect, at least 35 times since then. I don't understand the motivation for this, but it doesn't seem like an appropriate way to edit an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I agree with Metro on that. Mandsford (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: This is part of New York City sports lore, but it's better to redirect to Madison Square Garden. Let's delete and redirect the article to Madison Square Garden. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 11:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you've already redirected this to Madison Square Garden. I don't see this as a likely search term, and a redirect isn't really a delete, since it's all in the history. Again, can't this information be incorporated into articles about those teams 1993-94 seasons? Mandsford (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will echo what Mandsford has said. You should not be redirecting the article during an afd. Deletion and redirect are two different things. This is not an appropriate redirect to madison square garden as someone looking for information on madison square garden is not going to type this in a search box. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting can be a valid way to end an AfD debate, but we've been down this road before, and you continue to try and push this little obsession regardless. I agree with others that the proposed redirect isn't a good target as nobody is ever going to make such a search. Let this AfD complete. Otherwise, we'll just be doing this again at RfD. Reso lute 20:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no advantage to organizing the information like this. Zagalejo^^^ 20:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure what the best way to handle this article is. Perhaps keep, perhaps merge with Madison Square Garden, perhaps delete and merge the relevant contents to the individual Ranger and Knick season articles, perhaps something else. But none of the delete arguments so far seem to hold up. There is little or nothing in the article that can't be sourced without synthesis, so the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH argument doesn't work. The argument that there have been many instances of multiple teams in a city winning or almost winning championships. Heck you can get multiple examples just sticking to New York - Jan 1969 the Jets won the Super Bowl, Oct. 1969 the Mets won the World Series (and then a few months later the 69-70 Knicks won a championship as well); The 1986 Mets and Giants won the World Series and Super Bowl respectively; the 1927 and 1928 Yankees won the World Series, the 1927-28 Rangers won the Stanley Cup and the 1927 Giants won the NFL championship (the Yankees and Giants combined in 1938 and 1956 as well). But none of these situations, nor any listed above, are relevant to this article. Because what makes the topic of this article different is that both championship runs were occurring in the same building at the same time. Which is also why organizing the information like this does have some advantage. Because in many ways, this was one big event - virtually every day for two months Madison Square Garden was hosting a playoff game, right down to game 7 of the respective finals. Which created a much different buzz, with much different coverage, than when the Knicks alone when to the Stanley Cup finals a few years later, for example. Or when the Mets and Giants won their respective championships in 1986, but 4 months apart. Rlendog (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The synthesis and original research is that the two as a combined event was notable. I highly doubt you can find many sources talking about the combined event as a notable happening. I don't doubt that the atmosphere was different and that each individual even was notable. But was it notable as a single entity? I doubt it and I doubt you can find any sources specifically talking about them as a combined event which is what would be required per WP:RS. Not just articles about one that mentions the other was happening at the same time. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not so sure. I don't care enough about saving this article to try to dig up 15 year old sources. But I recall a lot of coverage about the two teams marching towards potential championships together, and possibly ending long championship droughts at the same time. And comparing Messsier captaining the Rangers to Ewing captaining the Knicks. And comparing Keenen coaching the Rangers to Riley coaching the Knicks. Rlendog (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably up there with the many other times this has happened. Just for laughs, I ran a list of the four major sports from 1951 to 1993. Leaving out the CFL and the AFL, two teams from the same city in the same year making the championship finals isn't merely unusual, it's common - happening in 27 of those years. The Boston Celtics and the Boston Bruins have done it in three of those years, including back-to-back in '57 and '58. The Yankees and the football Giants did it three straight from 61-63, and the LA Dodgers and the Lakers did it three straight from 63-65. Four of those seasons teams from two cities had multiple finalists, and three seasons had cities with three finalists: 1951 (Giants, Yankees, Knicks), 1980 (Phillies, 76ers, Flyers) and 1986 (Celtics, Patriots, Red Sox). RGTraynor 07:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. But the only examples of those that happened simultaneously were the Celtics/Bruins ones. And since they have done it several times - and by the time the Bruins became good around 1970 the Celtics had been in the finals many times in recent memory - those examples may not have warranted as much coverage as the Rangers and Knicks did in 1994. Of course, there were other instances of simultaneous championship runs in NY, especially during the 1940s and 1950s (and 2000), but those are covered under their respective World Series articles. Rlendog (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Err, no, see 76ers/Flyers (1980) as well as Knicks/Rangers (1972), Bulls/Blackhawks (1992) ... RGTraynor 18:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I had forgotten about 1972, I guess since both the Knicks and Rangers lost and neither final went the distance. And that was also different from 1994 since the Knicks were world champs just 2 years earlier. Of course, there have been other instances outside NY, as you point out, but it is still an unusual event. And I don't know if the 76er/Flyers or Bull/Blackhawks (or 1973 Knicks/Rangers) similtaneous championship runs generated the coverage that the 1994 Knicks/Rangers did. Rlendog (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Which would suggest that you're going on personal memory and supposition here. You're a New Yorker, so arguably the 1994 championship runs were to you a very big deal, while by contrast winter series taking place when you were in elementary school or those in Philadelphia or Chicago made much less of an impression. I cheerfully accept that the spring of 1994 had to have been an exciting time to be a NY winter sports fan, but we can't base the validity of articles around happy memories, any more than it's valid to have a Boston championship sports in the 21st century, even though Boston teams have played in ten league finals and won six championships in the last eight years and we're pretty happy about that here in Massachusetts. RGTraynor 19:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the only real value articles like these have is that they can help create a clearer timeline of when certain events took place in a given stadium. We used to have an article, List of arenas to host NBA Finals and Stanley Cup Finals in the same year, which provided that information succinctly. However, it was deleted. Zagalejo^^^ 02:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Not really an encyclopedic topic as a stand alone article as well. Tavix | Talk 23:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - blatant OR. Knicks–Rangers Finals series of 1994 should also be deleted ans salt—Chris! _ct 18:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the article falls under OR. The organization of the information may be original, but the facts that make up the article are not. (Admittedly, there is some unsourced material.) I still stick with my above position to delete the article, as well as Knicks–Rangers Finals series of 1994 as Chris stated above, but let's make sure the reasons are accurate. -Sme3 (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it does fall under original research. Editor cannot "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." See WP:SYNTH.—Chris! _t 02:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just for my own education (and please don't consider this an argument, since we both ultimately support the same position), what conclusion is being reached or implied? Is it simply the fact that, indeed, they both played in the same place at the same time? -Sme3 (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What conclusion that is "not explicitly stated by any of the sources" is derived from "combin[ing] material from multiple sources"? Rlendog (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That the combined event itself was a major notable occurrence. -DJSasso (talk) 02:02, 22 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. NW (Talk) 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RoomSaver[edit]

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

I don't think that this company's notability is established by reliable independent sources -- the sources cited (at least those I can verify) appear to be PR sites, press releases, or travel sites of the variety "here's a list of travel tips". Furthermore, the article is written in a promotional fashion ("has assisted millions of people"). NawlinWiki (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All citations have been updated with clickable links and can now be verified--BDHuneycutt (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Majority of the citations provided are from newspaper or magazine articles searched in a University Database including articles from Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine, Hotel & Motel Management Magazine, The Orlando Sentinel, The St. Petersburg Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Business Wire Magazine. They are correctly referenced according to the database provided citations and are legitimate/reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki makes the claim that the links he can verify are either PR or press release sites, but the only information used from those sites are information about the updated website which is factually based information. Any other information that references one of the PR/Press release sites also provides a link to a reliable independent source. The only promotional fashion that is easily identified is the statement "has assisted millions of people." It is a statement of fact, but If that is the only issue, it can and has been edited out. This page should not be deleted.

* As an organization, it is significant for being the first travel coupon guide of it's type, only national publication of it's type, and for it's website being the top travel coupon website. I am the primary author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BDHuneycutt (talk • contribs) 17:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC) — BDHuneycutt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would this not have made a Speedy G11? The references are of the Press Release/Promotional/Life Style/Directory listing variety without any supporting independent sources. As any hotel with empty rooms will offer a discount the only notable aspect here seems to be their creation of a coupon business to achieve the same but this aspect seems to have passed un-noted anywhere. Lame Name (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - I would agree with you except for the fact that legitimate and reliable sources were used along with a few Press Releases. Those press releases however are only used to attribute fact based information, i.e. information about the website and a few other pieces of information that are backed up with further independent sources including articles from Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine, Hotel & Motel Management Magazine, The Orlando Sentinel, The St. Petersburg Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Business Wire Magazine, which are not Press releases, promotional, life style or directory listings. Just because an independent source can not be linked to online, does not make it unreliable. The page does not qualify for Speedy G11 for this reason.--BDHuneycutt (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Plenty of Ghits, but as NawlinWiki pointed out, they're basically PR sites or blogs. (By the way, I struck out the second "strong keep" up there because that user already voted.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Press releases do not merit notability, they merit releases of info to be published by the press. If the press writes about this company independently of the PR, then we'll have something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the page? Press releases are only referenced on factual statements, like website information, and not for promotional reasons. There are more references where the press writes about this company independently from the PR as you mentioned than actual press releases are referenced. The issue here is not that press releases are slightly used but that there aren't any clickable links to the newspaper and magazine articles online. The information CAN be found as referenced if searched within a database. This does not merit means for deletion. Non Press Release articles referenced on this page include an article from Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine which does not publish press releases, a article titled "Exit Information Guide has been acquired by Virginia-based Trader Publishing Co." which is an article on a merger, as well as a title "In case of a hurricane" which is not a press release, and also "Roomsaver.com and CouponSurfer.com Sign Exclusive Marketing Pact; Cross Promotion to Increase Traffic to Both Sites" which is another article about a merger in BusinessWire which is clearly not a press release--BDHuneycutt (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I get the feeling that you did not review WP:CORP, as you are touting the press releases. I have no doubt as to their verifiability, but you will also note that WP:CORP specifically states that these are primary sources, as they are written by the organization/corporation in question or for them. We need articles about them, from third parties. Please see the end of the primary sources section pertaining to corporations (linked twice) insofar as this is concerned. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I placed the ((rescue)) tag into the article that I had removed from here in the AFD, as the rescue tag is not appropriate for AFDs. Why do you rescue an AFD? Rescue an artcle! =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have been trying to make the RoomSaver page as wikipedia friendly as possible, it is my first page and I want to perfect this page prior creating other pages. I had no idea it was this difficult to create an encyclopedia entry. I do not think that this page deserves to be deleted, as there is very good information provided, even if a few references are considered press releases. I've seen worse pages with significantly less references that just have a warning at the top stating the problems with the page. I hope that RoomSaver qualifies to receive one of those warning instead of being deleted. If it doesn't, and if this page has to be deleted, please move it to my edit space so I can work on it further to meet Wikipedia's qualifications. Thanks. --BDHuneycutt (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)--173.186.127.198 (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding on a userfy !vote in light of BD's comment. =) BD, if it gets nuked and you don't get the userfied page, you'll need to ask an admin for assistance - they're generally happy to oblige. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just did a heavy cleanup job on this to see what (if anything) was left, and came to the conclusion that there's nothing to save. If you took out everything that's solely attributed to press releases, all you have left is that they exist. I don't doubt that, but that isn't sufficient for them to have an article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and regarding BDHuneycutt's comment above that
"Roomsaver.com and CouponSurfer.com Sign Exclusive Marketing Pact; Cross Promotion to Increase Traffic to Both Sites" which is another article about a merger in BusinessWire which is clearly not a press release
—sorry, but you're incorrect. Business Wire is (to quote from the WP article), "a company that disseminates full-text news releases." That's what they do. The fact that it's from BW means that it is a press release. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for trying to salvage this article. I was doing more research and found this article: [14], but since I am not fully understanding of what is a press release and what is not and I didn't seem to correctly cite the pages I found, I thought I would share it here before including it in the page in an attempt to receive some feedback. For the record, even though, apparently much of the sources are press releases, there are newspaper article that are cited. How many article are needed in order to make this a legit page? As I said before, I've seen other wikipages that have few if any sources and they simply receive a warning at the top of the page stating that the page lacks information. This page clearly does not lack information, it is just the sources that are problematic. How can this be resolved? --BDHuneycutt (talk) 16:31, 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 Speedy keep. A verifiably extant settlement is never going to get consensus for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ust[edit]

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

A random village in Afghanistan with no notability at all, and is merely proving a haven for a bit of vandalism. The article wouldn't even be notable for a massively comprehensive atlas, nevermind an encyclopedia. It can also be barley verified that the village exists. Agent Blightsoot 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per this, this and this. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not only does the village appear on Google Earth but maps are also available on a google search. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if verifiable. - Altenmann >t 18:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As much as I dislike the concept of inherent notability, verifiable locations are generally notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a verified place. Towns and villages are notable regardless of size. An article being frequently vandalized is not grounds for deleting the article but to counter vandalism.--Oakshade (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A village. Joe Chill (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: If a town exists, inherent notability applies as one of the few unbreakable rules around here.--Milowent (talk) 21:14, 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. Tone 18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Vault (Rascal Flatts album)[edit]

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

I haven't been able to find a single reliable third party source pertaining to this album. Nothing at all besides the band's own website, and other unusable links like Amazon, Last.fm, etc. Even the Allmusic listing is just a blank placeholder. Given the title, it would make an unlikely redirect, and given that Rascal Flatts is the hottest band in country music, the outright lack of sources is stunning. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Waste of time. Album released last week by notable group, "the hottest band in country music," as the nominator says. Nominator apparently couldn't find listing pages at RollingStone.com and CMT.com and proposed deleting album as hoax, a very bad call. In the unlikely event that this sinks without further coverage, we can always revisit it in a few months and merge the content to the group article or the group's discography, but deletion is obviously the wrong call. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CMT and Rolling Stone listings are only directories. I haven't found anything on CMT or Lyric Street that even announced the release of this album; albums by notable acts aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. I personally don't see the point in a redirect due to the non-plausible nature of the title as a search term. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer, also it seems this album is Amazon.com's version of iTunes' Summer of Flatts.--Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:50, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McDojo[edit]

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

This article fails to meet verifiability requirements and also fails to meet inclusion guidelines for neologisms. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the article constitutes original research. There are currently 5 citations, but three of them (#2, #4, and #5) do not even mention the term at all. The other two contain passing mentions. A Toronto Star article has the following sentence: "The sheer number of fight schools in Toronto promising fast and furious training has also given rise to a fresh, if not flattering, moniker: McDojos." That's it. No further descriptions of the neologism, how it arose, how it is used, etc. The same is true of the Cairns Sun reference, which contains a quote in which a martial arts teacher denies his school is a McDojo. Again, that's it. We can't build an article on this slender reed of sourcing. There's just nothing reliable and verifiable to say. The real purpose of this article is to inflate the prominence and reputation of marginal web sites. It's bullshidocruft and bullshidospam. If we limited the article to verifiable information it would literally consist of about 2 sentences. *** Crotalus *** 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean Don't disagree that article needs cleanup but delete not the right tack. Topic is notable. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic is notable. it would be a disservice to the encyclopedia to delete, and the nomination seems wp:pointy Theserialcomma (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After this edit VERY pointy --Nate ^t/_c 08:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand WP:POINT. There has been no disruption of Wikipedia. Nominating poorly sourced articles for deletion is not disruptive, it's standard procedure. *** Crotalus *** 14:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing an article without discussion, and not preserving any of the content seems disruptive to me. As does nominating/stealth deleting articles related to one that you have already nominated for AfD twice, when there has been no recent discussion on the issues. --Nate ^t/_c 15:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple sources, renaming is potentiality an option to avoid a neologisms but I'm not sure to what. --Nate ^t/_c 08:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources that mention the term in passing. How is it possible to write anything about the term "McDojo" without resorting to original research? *** Crotalus *** 14:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'In passing' is a miss-characterisation, one of the sources used it in the title! Also AfD is not the place to take an article that needs a re-write, you could have tried removing objectionable parts or raising the issue on that talk page, they way you are behaving feels more and more like a grudge. Also I think I just said that renaming to avoid a neologism might be a good idea! No one is saying that it is a finished article, just that it might be one day. --Nate ^t/_c 15:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read that article? I did. There are exactly two uses of the term. Yes, one use is in the title. The other use is the following sentence: "The sheer number of fight schools in Toronto promising fast and furious training has also given rise to a fresh, if not flattering, moniker: McDojos." That's it. How can we build an article on something like this? *** Crotalus *** 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the whole article is on the topic hence my saying a Re-name might be in order! --Nate ^t/_c 08:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate ^t/_c 08:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to a similar article such as Bullshido. Concur that the nomination seems WP:POINTy. Apparently Wikipedia is now to be yet another web site, along with E-Budo, MartialTalk, etc., that bans Bullshido.net--related material. However, McDojo may be used by that group but is hardly their own term. Black Belt Magazine and NAPMA's magazine would be a good place to look for additional sources.JJL (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BURDEN which is official Wikipedia policy. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I am challenging this article and I demand reliable, non-trivial sources. It's not enough to say they might be out there. Let's see them. *** Crotalus *** 14:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Nate ^t/_c 08:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this article can stand on its own, sources don't indicate that it is a widely used term. Could it possibly be merged with similar articles (Bullshido, Bullshido.net, anything else?) to a new summary article? I'm thinking criticism of martial arts, although that title is a little misleading since it often isn't criticism of martial arts as a whole. Any better ideas? the wub "?!" 09:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the benefit to merging Bullshido & McDojo under another title, I think merging Bullshido.net however would not be as useful, as while it investigates those areas and helped popularise the terms, it would imply they were the only people who did this kind of thing and tie the terms to the site too closely. --Nate ^t/_c 11:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It probably could be retitled to something with a wider scope, something like "Controversies in introductory training of the Japanese martial arts" with a section about the particular epithet McDojo, but the article is about a real, notable thing, and we should give it time to develop. For instance the practice of requiring a testing fee and ten different colored belts ( most karate schools have just four colored belts, with stripes of electrical tape added when the student reaches the next dan, or level, students pay a flat rate for the course regardless of how often they test, and there are no promises or special tracks to earn a black belt faster. ) Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:34, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Article has been merged by the nominator. The article has to remain as a redirect for GFDL compliance. See WP:MAD. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substrate (materials science)[edit]

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

This article is just a dictionary entry with a list of coating processes that can be applied to a substrate. Seeing how the article list of coating techniques already exists, I propose that the list is merged into that and the remaining article deleted. Wizard191 (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't need an AfD: suggest a merge and redirect on the article's talkpage, and if there are no objections go ahead and do it. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well after the merge is completed I feel the article should be deleted, because a redirect to list of coating techniques is pretty misleading. Wizard191 (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Polaron | Talk 02:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the article is useless as it is. A redirect to list of coating techniques would not look awkward to me. Agree that this is hardly an Afd issue - if consensus is needed for merging, here it is. My only reason for not deleting the article is that the topic of the article is very well valid, and newcomers might be discouraged to recreate an article after deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect – to (a newly created, stubby section of) Coating and printing processes, itself a stub but a far better target than List of coating techniques. --Lambiam 20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close - please close this AfD as I have merged the contents into list of coating techniques and added a redirect to it per the advice above. Lambiam - if you feel that the info will also fit into the coating and printing processes article as well feel free to copy the list there as well. Wizard191 (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If page A redirects to page B, then the Principle of least astonishment requires that the reader should find the topic given by the title of page A discussed somewhere on target page B; ideally, it should figure in the lede and be presented there in bold (see WP:R#PLA). However, the word "substrate" does not even occur in List of coating techniques, and the reader redirected there by clicking on the link "substrate" while reading the article Immunoprecipitation may be most astonished. --Lambiam 06:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was my point exactly. I feel that the article should be deleted, because there isn't a good article to redirect it to. Even though the article that you recommended mentions the word I don't feel that takes the place of an article that addresses the full concept of a substrate. If it isn't deleted then it ought to be turned into a soft redirect to the wiktionary entry. Wizard191 (talk) 13:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Línea Coahuila Durango[edit]

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

Delete. The article is not notifiable enough to be on wikipedia, contains one reference and is less than one line long Robin09999 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Railways are usually regarded as notable ("notifiable"??), it's just that this one happens to be in Mexico. (How many English WP editors live in Mexico?) Such a short article should be tagged for expansion by knowledgeable editors rather than deleted. The website contains plenty of information (if you can read the language!) and would be a very good starting point. Looking at this page which shows the routes operated, the railway covers a significant area (1/10th area of Mexico?) and number of routes (5 + several branch lines). -- EdJogg (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WARNING -- reference website text is invisible in Firefox (black-on-black)!! (However, becomes visible with IETab add-on.) -- EdJogg (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a direct link to the map: [15] --NE2 23:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a common carrier shortline railroad. Here are a few English sources. --NE2 23:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NE2, supported by sources linked. oknazevad (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a company formed when the Ferrocarriles Nacionales de Mexico was privatised between 1997 and 1999 and from the map operates a number of lines in a number of Mexican states. Notable anyway, and NE2 has found English sources for expansion. I've just slightly expanded the article and added a reference I found. Edgepedia (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for other operating railroads. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Triadian (talk) 23:13, 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 delete a7, doesn't assert notability per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Note Records[edit]

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

no indication of how this group is notable. Fails WP:RS, and possibly part of a walled garden with Rainbowtron and Spermatic Chord. I initially thought it might be a WP:HOAX, but think this is maybe not the case. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not notable.Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 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 Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spermatic Chord[edit]

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

no indication of how this group is notable. Fails WP:RS, and possibly part of a walled garden with Rainbowtron and Brown Note Records. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all notable.Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this is deleted, I'd suggest making it a redirect to spermatic cord as a plausible variant spelling / search term. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 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 a7, no assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbowtron[edit]

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

Appears to be not at all notable. 89 unique Ghits, possible walled garden with Spermatic Chord and Brown Note Records. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all notable.Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 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. Invoking WP:SNOW. No chance of this being kept; the only people voting keep are sockpuppets. NW (Talk) 19:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NomiTime[edit]

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

delete, not a slang dictionary or things made up one day Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICTDEF and WP:MADEUP WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never heard of it, whether it's made up or not, it doesn't seem to fit in with WP:GNG either way. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also have heard it, maybe its more common with females, Leighdean (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The basis for the deletion nomination wasn't that it doesn't exist! Wikipedia isn't for everything anyone might have heard of. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it for things make up one day. ShakingSpirit ^talk 14:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best this is a minor slang term and delete as per WP:DICTDEF at worst it should be deleted as per WP:CB.Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – nothing to support the word in Google. WIkipedia is not for things make up one day. ttonyb (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT, WP:NEO, WP:NAD. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
have heard this used once or twice, but not very often, guess it has relevance. Kmmccabe (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. 22 Ghits: two are Wikipedia; one is Flickr; the rest are either unrelated usernames or foreign language sites. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:56, 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) 08:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Alexander (politician)[edit]

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

No significant coverage of this political candidate exists, appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there is national news coverage of this political candidate. [16] [17] He just launched his campaign. Why do you have against me, seriously? Dc archivist (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Neither are substantial or national coverage.

Comment There's a video [18] This is something else. Good luck do whatever you want. Dc archivist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete And Dc archivist (talk · contribs) would do well to assume good faith. AfD does not indicate that anybody has anything against you. No indication of notability.Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ok. I'll get over it. Dc archivist (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't automatically have coverage of political candidates. Leo Alexander has just announced his candidacy for the mayoral election a year away, and has got a couple of items of coverage in local news, another item here. It's not enough to demonstrate the kind of notability needed per WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. I suggest WP:USERFICATION of this page so that Dc archivist can work on it until significantly more press coverage appears. Fences&Windows 21:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 21:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 21:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete premature article. Wait until he's mayor. (no objection to userfication) Ohconfucius (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If userfying is being considered, as was suggested above by User:Fences and windows, I submit that it might be better to move this article to WP:INCUBATOR, a new project that is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see the article, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs.
Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this kind of article is right for the Incubator; it's a case of waiting to see if he'll become notable. That's not what the Incubator is for. Fences&Windows 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no encyclopaedic value New seeker (talk) 14:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redpill[edit]

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

Unnecessary split that fails general notability guideline. cmadler (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep ~~at the moment~~ - I think this could probably be a decent article, as such I have tagged it for rescue. –xeno^talk 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Upgraded to regular-strengh keep per sources identified by Ceranthor and steps already taken towards improvement –xeno^talk 20:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's definitely notable, but the article is in bad shape. If I could improve it much, I would, but I am not good with media articles. Keep per Jacking in to the Matrix franchise: cultural reception and interpretation, Taking the red pill: science, philosophy and religion in The Matrix, this book, this book, Matrix Warrior: Being the One, and The Matrix in theory. I feel it is covered sufficiently in all of these books and therefore notable. ceranthor 19:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Notability issues have been addressed for the most part. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept/metaphor is evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Its a notable concept, and vital to the matrix articles, and the article merely needs improvement. 216.221.96.202 (talk) 03:56, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moisés Arias[edit]

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

Non-notable teen actor lacking adequate supporting references. A number of GHits lacking substance and some minor GNEWS articles. Appears to fail WP:ENT ttonyb (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There appears to be numerous GNEWS hits beyond what I originally saw, the AfD may not be warranted. ttonyb (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His article is just like the other Hannah Montana stars' articles, and they're not being put up for deletion, so neither should this one. He is perfectly notable. - Zhang He (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Notability is not based on the existence of other articles. It is based on meeting the Wikipedia criteria. ttonyb (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It may be that other HM stars' articles should be nominated for deletion... (not saying that's the case, merely that the above isn't a valid argument for keeping). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Has a sinificant role in Hannah Montana, lead role in The Perfect Game, frequently used for Disney Channel promotions. J04n(talk page) 15:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:45, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Brown (murderer)[edit]

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

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 13:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is unfortunate that there are many criminals of this sort, and Wikipedia doesn't need articles about all of them. In fact, I recently decided not to write an article about Anthony Kirkland, whose crimes were both worse and more widely covered, because I didn't think that he passed the bar set by WP:BLP1E. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and all the NOTs. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He failed in his attempt to become famous, and fails WP:BIO. (There should be an essay WP:RIPPER that says we avoid giving articles to guys who kill women because they want to be famous like Jack the Ripper). Edison (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not historically notable. As the guy who uses the name of the murderer of Batman's parents would say, this is an "ordinary murderer". The guy evidently craves fame, glad he got caught before he could add to it. Mandsford (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notoriety or news coverage to be notable New seeker (talk) 14:36, 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) 08:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual ground marking[edit]

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

Non-defining or trivial characteristic, see WP:OVERCAT Gary (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this page for deletion because it seems like several disparate phenomena are being lumped together in a way that doesn't really make sense. It is as if Wikipedia had a page listing types of art created on a flat surface. Gary (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't appear to be a term that is in general use; a search for "crop circles" on Google news yields many hits, but a similar search for "unusual ground marking" gives none. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the ghits I found seemed to be mirrors of the Wikipedia page. It's most likely WP:MADEUP. Created in January 2005, it's unfortunate it wasn't found earlier. JUJUTACULAR 13:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable neologism, possibly original research. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe whoever first made the article wanted something like UFO, except for the ground, so they came up with UGM? Gary (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced crap from Wikipedia's early days, when "verifiable" was considered optional. Maybe "UGM" is a buzzword among people who use telephone poles as a unit of measurement, but without sourcing, I don't know... or care. Mandsford (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to point out that there are some redirect pages associated with this, namely, Unusual Ground Marking and Unusual ground markings. Do these get deleted at the same time this page gets deleted? Gary (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The short answer is "yes". More long-windedly, if a page that gets deleted has redirects pointing to it, one of two things can happen. Either they get deleted (per WP:CSD#G8), or they get retargeted to redirect somewhere else. In the case of simple case and tense redirects, such as those two you list, then the former is almost certain.
  If the outcome of the debate is to redirect the page under discussion, any redirects pointing to that page are pointed to the same target (either by a human or a bot that finds and fixes double redirects). Administrators who delete pages should check for any inbound links and redirects, but in practice this does not happen 100% of the time. So drawing attention to redirects to pages under discussion is not uncommon.
  If you find a dangling redirect, you can either delete it (if you are an administrator), or request that someone who can delete it does so (((Db-redirnone)) is the easiest way). Alternatively, if you think that the redirect would be useful pointing somewhere else, you can edit it to do just that or discuss it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (WP:RFD). Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your excellent answer. Gary (talk) 02:26, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Keeling[edit]

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

It is not clear to me that this person meets the notability criteria. Prod removed without the addition of sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keeling plays in the seventh tier of English football, so this fails WP:ATH. Cmprince (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We do not need articles on every minor league footballer, hardly even on theri clubs. The article is created by user:Primetime222, which would seem from the subject's nickname, to be an alias for the subject. Accordingly this is autobiography, and a clear case of WP:COI. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ATH is clear that you have to be fully professional. As a semi-professional it's close, but no cigar. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable WP:ATHLETE failure with no independent coverage in reliable sources. --ClubOranje^T 09:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable footballer Spiderone 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable footballer at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a long way off meeting WP:ATH or WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 13:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. The original version of this article looked like a joke article, and it was only after the article was PRODded that the article's creator rewrote in a way that looks plausible. I think it may be a hoax, but anyway it's not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a hoax, he is shown in the playing squad on the official Retford United website. But you are right that he has not played at a notable level -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 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 keep. I am not convinced that the sources currently present are sufficient for notability, but no consensus exists to delete. Evil saltine (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parchive[edit]

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

DELETE. This is not a notable file format. The only sources cited are a school website and sourceforge? Um, No. JBsupreme (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here from SourceForge, where I saw PAR/PAR2 mentioned and wondered what that was. So I hit Wikipedia, and there the article was -- and sure enough, on it, also a badge added courtesy of yet another deletionist's self-gratifying initiative to convince themselves of their crucial importance to this project. I would have been disappointed not to find the answer to my question what PAR/PAR2 are at Wikipedia. Of course a deletionist thinking "well, I've never heard of this, so it can't be important" will never understand. Yes, that's kinda the point. Articles containing only self-evidently obvious information that everybody already knows -- such articles are dramatically less useful than articles that you can actually, you know, learn something from. No, I'm not interested in your response or predictable forthcoming use of more templates. I understand though, that it makes some people feel really good to be given the opportunity to play policeman. 188.192.112.34 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) Keep - like the person above said, simply a case of somebody didn't know what it was. Google "PAR2 files" or see any binary group on Usenet. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your motion to "speedy keep", while completely invalid, has been noted. JBsupreme (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please leave any comment on validity or invalidity of !votes on your AfD to admins, especially if you provide no justification for your comments. Such comments dance on the edge of WP:CIVIL. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, linking to google searches is lazy, but essentially all of these are relevent. —Korath (Talk) 04:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, I really do hate to go down a list of comments in an AFD and dispute them point-by-point (and yes I realize that is exactly what I am doing) but I'm really disappointed in your comment. Relevant or not, I have carefully examined the first few pages of the Google search you linked to and none of them contain links to non-trivial coverage of this subject from qualified, reliable third party publications as defined by Wikipedia policy. So lazy, yes. Relevant, not so much in terms of acceptability for citing within an encyclopedia. JBsupreme (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is certainly a relevant topic to Wikipedia. The Parchive format does exist (the whole file format is very well documented) and several implementation do exist (see available source codes). If this is to be deleted, I believe many entries should follow (read all pages describing a file format/program data files), like Odf, XML, ZIP_(file_format) and many many more. So please do NOT DELETE this page. Stijn_Ghesquiere
POINT OF FACT so far lots of people WP:ILIKEIT but NO ONE HAS SHOWN EVIDENCE OF NON-TRIVIAL COVERAGE BY RELIABLE THIRD PARTY PUBLICATIONS. If that does not change this article can and should be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of fact: Screaming in capital letters does not help your arguments. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And you've made exactly zero effort to find such sources yourself. Here's what literally thirty seconds of googling turns up: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Even whatlinkshere would have sufficed to find ten independent implementations (mostly via Comparison of Usenet newsreaders): DAR (Disk Archiver), QuickPar, SmartPAR, BinTube, GrabIt, NewsBin, NewsLeecher, NewsMan Pro, Unison (Usenet client), Usenet Explorer. Please withdraw. —Korath (Talk) 09:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uhhh, EXCUSE ME? Please assume good faith for one. Secondly, the sources you are citing are NOT RELIABLE nor are they fit for an encyclopedia. Lets examine them one for one, shall we? ydecode? no. afterdawn, a warez forum, no. warezfaq.com, no. binaries4all.com, again, NO. Nothing you cited is qualified as a reliable source as per WP:RS. Please withdraw your personal attacks. JBsupreme (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exists, is useful. Hobart (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Hobart, please refer to WP:ITEXISTS and WP:USEFUL. Thanks! JBsupreme (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The IP above is mostly right. As for reliable sources, the concept of reliable source depends very much on the subject. On such pieces of technology, which fall obviously a bit below the mainstream radar, I feel that for example the warezfaq article looks very much like sensible third-party coverage. The google search is enough to establish several hints of notability: the file format is widespread enough for people to use it, share files with it, write about it and asking information on it. As forWP:ITEXISTS and WP:USEFUL, they are just parts of an essay, not policy nor guidelines. By the way, WP:USEFUL says There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". , and this is a case in which such reasoning could reasonably apply. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what else is common sense? Our editorial policies on what constitutes a reliable source, which plays into how we examine the notability of a subject. If there isn't a single example of non-trivial coverage about this subject from a reliable publication, that speaks volumes above all else. JBsupreme (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please, it is really necessary to be so noisy about your AfD? You proposed it, we're discussing about it. You already repeated several times your personal point of view on the thing. We have understood it. Now, accept that your point of view is here to be discussed, and wait for the AfD to close. And please keep in mind WP:CIVIL, again. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said. there are examples of non-trivial coverage. What is reasonably a reliable source depends on the subject, and in this case I'd say there's plenty of reasonable third-party coverage -and a lot of documentation on the fact the format is widespread and used. This also should be considered for notability. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an essential part of Usenet, and it's conceiving and development is firmly bound to it. Several article refer to teh format anyway. It's used as an example of a Reed–Solomon_error_correction implementation. Also, the page Comparison of Usenet newsreaders will be severly impaired in terms of usability of you delete the PAR column.

I do understand that a encyclopedia is not the same as a journal, and that the articles in it should be reliable. I'm a big supported for the wikipedia project and it's search for quality. However, some common sense is also needed. The PAR file format, as mentioned before, does exist and is very well known, albeit not to the general public. The PAR format certainly has been reviewed in the past in printed computer magazines. I think it would be more appropriate to request references to such printed articles, instead of utterly delete the whole article. It will certainly pop-up again, as it is closely related to the usenet articles and because it's a nice (and well documented) implementation of an error correction algorithm. Stijn_Ghesquiere

Speedy Keep nom seems unfamiliar with the subject and AfD is not for cleanup. I really would like to see this article expanded and improved as there is plenty of material available on this subject. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm familiar with this subject and our policies. Thanks anyhow. The article doesn't need clean up, it needs deletion. There is no reliable coverage to substantiate it. JBsupreme (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you are indeed familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies then you should also be aware that the specification documents hosted on SourceForge such as Parity Volume Set specification 1.0 and Parity Volume Set Specification 2.0 are perfectly acceptable references per WP:SELFPUB in the context in which they are used. As for notability, since you seem to have such a strong interest in this subject, I suggest you go do some homework with Google and improve the article yourself as it is quite clear that this archive format is in extremely widespread use and absolutely meets the notability guideline. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - So far I see lots of hand waving and zero sources to back it up. I wonder why that is? Actually, I think I know the answer. JBsupreme (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without sources The WP:BURDEN on those who want to keep material in Wikipedia is to provide reliable sources disproving the rationale given for deletion. I know what PAR files are, but Wikipedia has a requirement that things be notable, not just popular with a niche group. Sometimes good educational material isn't relevant to the purpose of Wikipedia. If this can't be sourced to multiple and independent reliable sources of non-trivial mentions, then this belongs on some other wiki. Miami33139 (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is sourced. I don't get what kind of sources more you need other than those in the article (and those available online as showed above, which should be added). It is no "passing mentions", you find a lot of tutorials etc. online on PAR files. You cannot expect the Times to cover file formats. For example, the gzip article cites almost invariably primary sources. The ZIP (file format) article too, except for some article on a controversy and a NYT one on the author. Do you think that gzip and zip file formats are not notable? That the article needs some help is true, but AfD is not cleanup. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:01, 22 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 List of Law & Order episodes (season 19). Evil saltine (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Drowned and the Saved (Law & Order episode)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Drowned and the Saved (Law & Order episode)

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

The only article of the authors recent contributions that contains substantive content. In short, there is no need to expand the individual episodes beyond that of a list, and this article is an unnecessary fork. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the relevant list of Law and Order episodes. This is a plausible search term, given that Wikipedia has established naming patterns for articles about television shows, and an encyclopaedia user might well extrapolate from that to look for this title.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Individual episodes of a notable tv show are certainly notable. The nominator has provided no rationale for deletion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. If you wanted a bluelink to reinforce what should be a common sense decision see WP:EPISODE. Standard practice is individual episodes are only notable if notability is illustrated separately from that of the TV show. What with Law and Orders frightening amount of episodes, this doesn't cut it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Notability is NOT inherited from the parent to the child. Drawn Some (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unsourced and failing to meet the Notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. Episodes of major shows can generally be proven notable, but I don't think Law and Order has that kind of editorial muscle right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge. I am startled to see an article nom. for deletion on the basis that it has substantial content. I can't really see that what other articles the author may have written have the leaat to do with the question at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion, not even from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fall 1931 American Soccer League[edit]

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

~~Only a simple score chart. No content. WP is not a directory or almanac of sports stats~~ Shadowjams (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~: This category to create a large list of all the results. I don't think there's enough information to create a standalone article for each season or half season, but if they were merged together would create a fairly decent article that would support the main American Soccer League article that currently links to each individual article. _Met^ty 11:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge to Amercian Soccer League or userfy~~ . I think we have a larger problem here, with an editor creating a bunch of no-context stubs [26] at the same time. I have zero respect for that method of contributing to Wikipedia, which consists of creating more articles than one has time to actually work on, in hopes that the more that you have, the less likely it is that they will be nominated for deletion. We saw this last year with the mass creation of foreign relations articles, and I know from websites that there have been lots of soccer leagues and lots of seasons. Mandsford (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I didn’t create all the articles about individual ASL seasons. I did add this one which was missing. However I believe these articles are legitimate. Many other leagues have a season by season entry on Wiki. Do we delete them all ? I appreciate the article is not up to to Wiki standard but that can easily be sorted. It is easy to nominate articles for deletion, try improving them instead. Also this was not a half season as implied above, but a season in its own right. Djln--Djln (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - The article now has text and is a true article. That fixes my concern (note that only someone familiar with the topic could really sum up a season as required). Shadowjams (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that it has text, all concerns about the article are a moot point. At the time (1931), the ASL was the highest level of professional soccer in the United States. Mandsford (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a season article about a top-level, professional league is definitely worth an article. Maybe a clean up of POV, and a few sources, could make it into a decent article. Giant Snowman 12:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Happy with article since clean-up _Met^ty 15:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been edited with worthy content. Nom no longer applies. GauchoDude (talk) 03:53, 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) 08:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Rancourt[edit]

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

Amateur golfer that by the article's own terms doesn't meet WP:Athlete. No question that the article is truthful, but amateur athletes don't meet the criteria unless some extraneous notability is met. I don't see evidence of that here. Shadowjams (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated N2e (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Drawn Some (talk) 14:23, 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) 08:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Cheng[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR, simply being an author does not grant automatic notability. gnews search turns up other Christopher Chengs. this search mainly is directory listing rather than independent coverage of Cheng as an author. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above reasons. Though seems an admirable person, no encyclopedic notability established. Delete with no bias to re-create in future should further notability be asserted. --Whoosit (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he might be a very good author, but I haven't been able to find any third-party coverage of him (as opposed to his books). Christopher Cheng and Chris Cheng seem to both be pretty common names though, so it's possible I might have overlooked something relevant in the sea of results a search on either of those two names gives. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:13, 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 Moved to Talk:History of IBM/Sandbox, and moved the talk page of the sandbox to Talk:History of IBM/SandboxTalk. No need to let this run for the full 7 days when no one really wants to delete it, but the page just needed to be moved out of the main namespace. Fram (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of IBM/Sandbox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/History of IBM/Sandbox

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

This is apparently an attempt at a discussion, project, or talk page, but it's in the main namespace. If anything it needs to be userfied. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Sandbox of proposed changes to History of IBM. A brand new editor placed those suggested changes (with embedded commentary) at Talk:History of IBM. I moved it to a sandbox, which is more suited to the task. This nomination of a page only a few hours old is quite inappropriate; in the associated talk page section I even noted that the commentary needs to be culled out from the content. How about giving the guy some time to do the work? Also, I note that the nominator didn't even bother to do the slightest bit of investigation... "Apparently some sort of attempt at discussion" -- there is a clear explanation and history on the main article talk page. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but see User_talk:Blaxthos#Proposal where I proposed to userfy it. Debresser (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I culled out the commentary and added it to the talk page, per Blaxthos suggestion. Next steps? Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help the editor Userfy this. I'm not sure how a sandbox became a new article after being moved anyway, but this seems like an easy fix. Mandsford (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, it's not a "new article". History of IBM is the old article, History of IBM/Sandbox is the sandbox in which we're setting up the revised version of the existing article. While I don't particularly object to where it lives, I'm having a hard time understanding what the fuss is all about, since this is just a workspace for improving an existing article. WP:AGF not withstanding, this seems like a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense to me. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move/speedy close - this is clearly meant as a draft, most of the article is a duplicate of History of IBM. There's nothing wrong with this article except the location. It doesn't belong in article space, it should be in user space or as a subpage of Talk:History of IBM. Hairhorn (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy move/speedy close I think everyone agrees this page is fine, just as long as it is moved out of the main namespace. One thing though, looks like there's already some drafting going on at Talk:History of IBM/Sandbox. JUJUTACULAR 21:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Of course it's good faith and it is bureaucratic. It is a sandbox page living in userspace. That's not the procedure, and I can't/wouldn't userfy it to someone else without them requesting that first. Also, I'm sorry if you're worried about my timing, but no amount of time would change my reason for nom. If I made a mistake here it's that perhaps it should go to Requested moves or an admin board to get them to userfy it, but because it's also involving deletion of the mainspace article, and this gathers quick attention too, I chose this route. Shadowjams (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be easy enough to move it to Talk:History of IBM/Draft, then place ((Db-r2)) on the mainspace redirect left behind so it gets deleted. JUJUTACULAR 00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good god, just move it into the talkspace and then speedy the inappropriate page -- with no disrespect intended, this AFD was quite unnecessary. :-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:15, 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. Sandstein 06:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Scoob[edit]

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

Rapper who does not meet notability standards. Article appears to promote. No references to reliable sources. Contested speedy, removed by suspected sock/meatpuppet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Admittedly, this is an article I've been sitting around looking to create, however had not done so because I knew that as things stand now, he doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines. That is why I chose to create this where did, as opposed to creating it in the main namespace (with the hopes that with the release of that album, he would weasel his way into notability). As things stand right now, he doesn't come close to meeting any of the notability guidelines for music, so I would support the deletion of this article if that doesn't change. However, I'm curious if a final ruling on this matter couldn't be postponed until the latter part of next week. His album releases today (Tuesday) and albums released through Strange Music have shown a tendency to work their way onto one of a few Billboard Charts on their release week. Thus, I suggest waiting to pull the trigger until the Billboard charts come out for this weeks sales. If he charted, then one could make an argument for C2 on the Music Guidelines. If at the end of the week next week, he's missing from such charts as the 200, Independent, Heatseekers, R&B/Hip-Hop or Rap, then I would 100% support the charge in clearing this article out. I don't see much point in jumping to a decision now, just for someone to create it next week again if he were to find his way onto one of those charts. Just some food for thought. Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 06:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Save the article in user space, and if he hits the Billboard charts, bring it to DRV. Until then, he's just not notable. (I wish you'd held off until the album drops.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - You say that as if I created the article. For the record, I didn't, nor have I even touched the article in terms of editing. Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 21:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Doesn't really matter in this case, as you are welcome to save it in your user space if you think it might come back to usefulness should this artist attain notability. Our you can do something totally new. Your call. Just trying to be helpful. I don't think it's going to survive this AfD, though. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mizery Made, for such a good understanding of the music notability guidelines, you must also realize this violates WP:FUTURE. Clubmarx (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't yet meet WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:MUS Click23 (talk) 20:51, 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. Article mainly promotional, no substantial reliable third-party coverage provided. Sandstein 06:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Boynes[edit]

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

Fails WP:Author. Non-notable author, article appears to be primarily promotional. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources; most information appears to be her own website, and really doesn't indicate how she meets WP:BIO. The article also reads like a plot summary of her autobiography, rather than a true researched biography. Also, call me cynical, but part of me can't help but wonder if there is some WP:POV-pushing in the tone as well. If somehow she does meet WP:BIO, the article needs to explicitly say so and be substantially cleaned up. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I compare this to an article by Kinu on William Nordhaus, I don't see how the references used are any differently done than they are in his article. I also checked this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay. There are articles about people on this list that are less thorough than this article, and they are not flagged. Please give me some time to work on this article. I am confident that I can re-work it to conform to the standards. If you have specific suggestions, I welcome them. Ljh.rms (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Ljh.rms (talk)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a legitimate reason for keeping an article. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, 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." -- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I'm making a comparison because I am trying to understand exactly what specific improvements need to be made. General statements are difficult to remedy.

Ljh.rms (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Ljh.rms[reply]

Delete No reason to think notable--her books are in only two libraries a/c WorldCat. Promotional article, borderline G11, with some elements of WP:SOAPBOX. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant self-promotion by non-notable figure Vartanza (talk) 04:04, 22 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. Sandstein 06:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalal Bruchmann[edit]

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

Article, and a casual search, do not present enough WP:RS to establish notability. Fails WP:ACTOR and WP:BIO. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete oper nom. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly fails WP:ACTOR. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:29, 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. Sandstein 06:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESE Productions[edit]

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

I've removed the ((db-corp)) tag from this article because no admins have acted on the tag for the past four days. This indicates that speedy deletion of this article is controversial.

I have done several searches for sources on Google and Google News Archive, but have been unable to find any reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- There might be notability for 'The Phantom Edit'; there is only one working reference. But I cannot find any notability for this article or any of the subarticles of this. Clubmarx (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – lacks notability. ttonyb (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't act on the speedy deletion tag not because it was controversial, but because I wanted to be sure of my ground; I could not tell from the article whether it was being claimed that the "Phantom Editor" was part of ESE Productions, or simply that their work was like the Phantom Editor. I am now informed (see the talk page of the article) that the author's creators, whom I strongly suspect are ESE Productions, do not assert a relationship with the Phantom Editor other than that they assert that their work is like his. Therefore, although the Phantom Editor has demonstrable notability (see Mike J. Nichols), this group certainly does not, at least none that I can locate, and the article can safely be deleted. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:06, 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. Sandstein 06:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArACkA Spontaneous Comedy[edit]

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

I've removed the ((db-corp)) from the article because notability is asserted by this article from The Independent Florida Alligator. However, this source is not sufficient and does not qualify as "significant coverage" because it appears to a community notice about a performance. Furthermore, it is produced by students from the University of Florida, so it has not received the fact-checking that newspapers, such as The New York Times or the Washington Post have received.

I have searched for sources on Google News Archive but have been unable to find anything substantial. This group appears to fail WP:GROUP.

I will gladly withdraw this AfD if multiple, independent, in-depth reliable sources cannot be found about this comedy troupe. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No substantial coverage in major, reliable sources. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in gnews [27]. LibStar (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 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) 08:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Teenage Republicans[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:ORG. No reliable secondary sources in Google. Leuko (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Jshuy is a fake and misleading account with the intent to defraud and misrepresent an individuals identity. WP:TAGLEO:user:jshuy

Group of renegade party memebers not happy with a decision made by state officials, to limit the influence of a specific individual in the MDTARS INC constantly vandalize, please remove this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.66.194 (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please email Maryland Young Republican Chairman (parent organization of the MDTARS) to testify to the validity of the MDTARS INC. moshe@moshetechnologies.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshuy (talk • contribs) 05:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources about this topic. The results on Google News Archive are all passing mentions. I did find this passing mention in Google Books, but a listing in a directory is not enough to establish notability per WP:ORG. Cunard (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article. Posted by renegade individual who falsely claims affiliation with the Maryland Republican Party to run a statewide teenage Republican organization and operates an unauthorized website, www.mdtars.org, making such claims. Conduct a Whois search on mdtars.org and note that the website is registered to a private company (wholly owned by one Daniel Zubairi) and uses Zubairi's private mailing address, not that of MDGOP. Many other claims in this article are patently false. For example, in an attempt to give an aura of legitimacy to an unauthorized organization, the article's author falsely claims that the organization was chartered by National TARS. In fact, National TARS does not charter or approve any state organizations or federations, but merely provides resources (in the form of guides, etc.) to persons wishing to start teenage Republican organizations. Contact Barby Wells, National TARS Director, to verify.^[1] The article incorrectly states that Daniel Zubairi was an "elected McCain Delegate" in 2008, but in fact, Zubairi was NOT a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 2008, but only an alternate who never actually got seated as a delegate. There is a substantial difference. See http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2008/documents/winners_list_2008.pdf. --GOPJohnny (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Controversy aside, the group seems to flunk WP:ORG. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:12, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UMSDOS[edit]

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

~~Not notable file system. Sources are pointers to documentation, not a single independent source to establish notability - and there won't likely ever be because it is a dead product.~~ Miami33139 (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: UMSDOS has moved to FAT filesystem and Linux by Uncle G. Prior that it was list for rescue. --Mokhov (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep amended repositioned article is informative and well-referenced. pablo_hablo. 19:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn subject matter of the article has been expanded and sourced. UMSDOS is now just a subtopic. Please close, ok? Miami33139 (talk) 21:56, 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 redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients and merge where appropriate. Evil saltine (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NexIRC[edit]

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

Not notable. Links to download and review sites are not sources. Requirements and features section are text dumps and prime examples of what doesn't make a good article. What is left after that is the one sentence lead and an infobox. Miami33139 (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge: I can't find signficiant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to appropriate articles on IRC clients. Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment The eventual plan was to merge many of these stubs into a larger article. Redirecting to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#nexIRC would most likely be the easiest thing to do for now. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second the merge idea per Tothwolf and Rich --Mokhov (talk) 01:20, 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. Smithcraft36's comment disregarded as being made by a confirmed sock. Any contributor in good standing is welcome to the content on request. Sandstein 05:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Aryel[edit]

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

Non-notable person. References are just passing mentions or synthesis of original research. If this were cut to what is verifiable, there would be less than a stub. Jehochman ^Talk 03:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The textbook mentioned is real; the subject, biosurveillance, is not covered in any textbook prior to 2006; the publication sources are real, and relevant including papers Aryel authored. This article is exceptionally well-cited compared to many others. The original research is in the textbook mentioned.

There are a lot of articles posted in wikipedia, notably about popular media, which have no citations whatsoever. If you are going to delete articles, I suggest that you delete many of those first (the tag "this article has no citations" should really be deleted itself, since articles with no citations do not belong on wikipedia). There are probably hundreds of articles that should be deleted before this one is.Smithcraft36 (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smithcraft36, the great majority of your few edits to Wikipedia center on promoting the career of this individual. If you have a close connection to the subject, you should read and follow our conflict of interest guideline. One requirement is that you should not comment on this deletion discussion if you have a conflict of interest. Jehochman ^Talk 12:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you and I should stay on topic. I pointed out why I disagreed with your judgment about this article. Instead of addressing my points, you chose to make the argument personal based on my points. Wikipedia has a policy about personal attacks too - you will recall that editors should assume each other's motives and reasoning to be positive and try to let that guide us. I invite you to discuss the objective points of the article and refrain from personal attacks or judgments.Smithcraft36 (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject's dr. title and the scientific nature of the claim to notability would seem to place this case under the jurisdiction of WP:PROF. GS gives less than 10 hits with h-index of 2, while WoS gives 1 hit using Author=(aryel r*): J. Am. Med. Informatics Assoc. (1997) with 0 citations, for an h-index of 0. These figures suggest that the subject's work has not had a strong impact, Bush's visit notwithstanding – fails WP:PROF #1. I don't see any obvious possibility of passing any of the other WP:PROF criteria either. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Agricola44 has brought the discussion back on topic with a reasonable criticism, and that's good. Here's where I came from with this article: Aryel is not an academic. He's a consultant. His value specifically to biosurveillance is this: There was no coherent set of principles and practices published before 2006 (there was a chapter published in a 2004 textbook published by Springer-Verlag and Aryel was a coauthor of that one too). There were no biosurveillance systems in existence before 1999 (RODS was the only game in town when it started) and Aryel was a major subcontractor and author of the reports funded by AHRQ. RODS and biosurveillance are not strictly academic projects; RODS is a system used by public health to monitor for outbreaks in several states. WP:PROF really doesn't apply here. This is not to say that other participants in the project did not publish more articles; they did. But the key work that launched the RODS effort is what's covered here. Note that this is not a zero-sum game (ie for Aryel to "win" someone else has to lose - not the case). As an additional point, the textbook is the requited text for graduate biosurveillance coursework at the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie-Mellon University. Those two places and Johns Hopkins were the only places one could get graduate level training in the subject (that has changed in the last year or two). ...Smithcraft36 (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable by any standard. Certainly not by PROF, but he doesn't meet BIO either. Some references on the page don't mention him; others are to works written by him. Overall, there is insufficient secondary source material to support an article here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Raryel. This is beyond a simple matter of conflict of interest: the article is most likely autobiographical, not biographical. Smithcraft36's contributions to this discussion are all too similar in tone and in style to Raryel's responses on his user talk page. Furthermore, the revision history of this article and other coincidences in timing lead me to suspect that Jndoe is also a sockpuppet of Raryel's, perhaps with some intention of humor in its naming (see John Doe). I don't particularly want to pursue this through Sockpuppet Investigations; I would far rather that the user concerned admitted it here so that the matter could be quickly closed with this deletion discussion. 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 Ⓤ Ⓣ 16:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the author of a major handbook, the first in its field.. I don't much care who wrote the article. We;re discussing whether the subject is notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But where are the multiple independent secondary sources? Sometimes I think that "notable" is the wrong word for "worthy of an encyclopedia article" -- instead what we mean is "noted", i.e., someone else has noticed and produced reliable sources. Perhaps Aryel has done something we could ourselves judge significant ("notable"), but that doesn't help us write an article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a difference between something that's genuinely a major handbook and the first in its field and something that's promoted by its author and/or publisher as "a major handbook" and "the first in its field". This is one reason why we have verifiability. This one's definitely just promotional. 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 Ⓤ Ⓣ 14:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note again the sad appearance of personal attacks in place of reasoned discussion. For the record, incidentally, if a given article is factual and reasonably written and supported, it doesn't matter who wrote it. The conflict of Interest is a guideline intended to prevent abuse, not a law for persons to rely upon when they are unwilling to discuss issues. Wikipedia does not prohibit someone from writing about himself or herself; we note that it's harder to be objective that way, but it's not a crime. The "suckpuppet" issue is relevant when an editor is performing a true harm, such as threatening an illegal act against another editor, performing repeated outright vandalism on articles, threatening violence etc. Even then, "sockpuppet" doesn't necessarily prove anything (you never really know who is at the keyboard regardless of what the investigation finds, unless you go to where the computer actually is when the person is typing and watch him/her type). Smithcraft36 (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- As you wish it. You've been given two chances already in this discussion to allow an informal resolution of the COI issue: you haven't taken either of them. I've now taken this to Sockpuppet Investigations. I'm sorry it's come to this. 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 ⓊⓉ 14:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Smithcraft36 was found to be a sockpuppet account, and was blocked indefinitely.[28] Jehochman ^Talk 02:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems that the handbook, although first in its field, is yet to achieve notability by WP standards on the basis of independent citations. Maybe it will in the future. Time will tell. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:09, 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. NW (Talk) 01:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Cook (line of succession)[edit]

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

Article has no sources, and the sole claims to notability are that the subject is descended from Queen Victoria and is in line to the British throne. According to Line of succession to the British throne, there are 502 people in the same position, of whom Cook is the 316th, so this doesn't seem sufficient grounds for inherent notability.

Previously prodded as non-notable and (three years later) restored on the basis that the deletion reason was "gibberish". Deletion log link Algebraist 03:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial sources which deal with this person's life. All information is trivially availible from public records and other trivial sources, lack of any indepth coverage which would satisfy WP:GNG. --Jayron32 03:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It's still cool that if lightning struck the wrong assembly of royals at the wrong time, he could be like King Ralph. It is surprising if this has this never been covered in reliable and independent sources, perhaps when the movie came out. I find nothing in Google News Archive for "David Cook" "King Ralph" or David Cook" "British throne" Until such sources are found, delete because notability in not inherited and Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If such coverage exists, it probably focuses on the first American in the line of succession, who is not David Cook (apart from anyone else, he has four older brothers also in line). Algebraist 20:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't himself done anything to be considered notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 316th in line to the British throne... we stop counting any de facto right after about the top 50 (if that). No other claim to fame. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Jim Carmel (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We have deleted articles before about people who were much higher in the British line of succession than the subject. There is nothing here but genealogical information and no indication that his royal ancestry has led mainstream media to take notice of him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Parkway[edit]

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

unremarkable road, not significant enough to warrant a dedicated article. lacks references. RadioFan (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appears to be enough out there to write an article. Most of it is just ordinary projects like repaving, but [29] and [30] provide some history and talk about its importance, and [31] talks about a proposed extension. --NE2 07:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a significant road in this metropolitan area - not clear if it has a state highway number, but looks ok under Wikipedia:Notability_(streets,_roads,_and_highways) guidelines. Needs sources added, but article was just created, by gosh!. --Milowent (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: the State DOT [32] lists this road as an example of a "boulevard", which seems to match up with the wikipedia guideline. --Milowent (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I drive this road daily and dont see how could meet notability guidelines. It's not part of any central business district. It's not part a numbered system. Its been mentioned in local news of course (mention of accidents, repaving and widening) including several where the road is the subject of the article (widening, extension) maybe I'm not interpreting WP:STREETS but the depth of coverage to meet WP:GNG just doesn't appear to be there. While the NCDOT calls it a boulevard, I dont see it as meeting WP:STREETS definition of a boulevard. Unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly, this article does not meet []WP:STREETS]] because it's a main road mostly lined by residential development rather than the "commercial or other major non-residential development" as called for WP:STREETS.--RadioFan (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I gave a few sources that meet the general notability guideline. --NE2 23:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've driven on this road too and can attest it is a major heavily traveled ring road (well, almost ring). The sources added by NE2 give more confirmation of its notability. --Oakshade (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a major road in the area--very few of the roads and streets there are 4 lane divided roads, as this one is. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cary, North Carolina and redirect. Unless this article just happens to have enough unusual stuff to form an article, I believe merging it into the Town's article under Transportation would be beneficial. That Transportation subsection could use some beefing up before the parkway has its own article. This is what was done to the similar Apex Peakway --Triadian (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This road appears to a notable road in Cary and can sustain its own article. Dough4872 (talk) 16:31, 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Fordyce[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this article is an outright hoax, but it does appear to have very exaggerated claims. The sources in the intro for "mixing and producing" artists bear out to nothing more than credits for remixes. Quite frankly, if I pared this article back to just what could be verified to the sources, it might qualify for speedy deletion under A7. I feel the more transparent first step is to debate the merits of the article. Unless substantial coverage in independent sources (WP:GNG) is found, I strongly favor deletion of this article. if this debate produces another no consensus (no participants other than the nominator in the first one), then the WP:BLP axe must be taken to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While it is not impossible to sell lots of records with a remix, it is usually due to the success of the original version which is produced by different people. One only needs to check the alleged Michael Jackson remix to understand why this article has serious and irreparable problems; I found this at Discogs - One Last Chance but the official remix release is here. The original version is a totally different CD, one that more importantly, there is no record that it even charted at Billboard. In fact there is nothing on Billboard that gives support to any of the so called "38 Billboard Hits" being claimed. If such scale of success should exist, then this would probably be reflected with a few interviews with reputable magazines per WP:GNG. Also, this amount of success is usually reflected on the Grammy nominations book, it seems strange that not one single nomination was achieved. Remixes, unless the subject if of an indisputable fame (in which case it would be easier to obtain magazine interviews) are usually not a good vehicle to establish notability, much less if they are mp3 downloads. Jrod2 (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment This person does not seem to be a hoax, but is one of those people confined to the fine print well down on the list of credits. I did not actually see any real stories on the man, just mention of the name, so I would say that WP:Notability is not achieved. 11:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete remixers are not as important as the artists, writers, producers and only a very few deserve to be considered important to the record's success. I don't see where this subject contributed to the success of any of the records. Ubot16 (talk) 00:17, 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 deleted per WP:CSD#G11. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flipsters[edit]

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

non-notable product that fails WP:GNG. Admittedly not surprising, since it hasn't even been released yet, but still. Ironholds (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe the article can be recreated after the product is actually released. (This also violates WP:COI, as the article was created by Ben Lipschitz, the founder of the company that invented the product.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that seems reasonable to delete for now - we perhaps jumped to it a little fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benlipschitz (talk • contribs) 06:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is obvious that the founder of Flipsters has just written this article to promote, to sell his product before his release, like an advertisement. Notability is questionable. Lack of third party sources. Wait for the product to be released and when there are references to recreate this article (if it is still notable). Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 17:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, attempt at promotion etc. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:21, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zwick Roell Group[edit]

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

First, this page fails to provide any independant, reliable sources to establish notability, so it violates WP:RS and WP:N. In addition, this article is written like an advertisement, a blatant violation of WP:NOADS and WP:NPOV. Mathemagician57721 (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the company satisifies ntoability with coverage in a variety of sources such as [33], and [34] as examples. My Google News search turns up many more results for the company (some press releases, many not). -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because the article is written like an advertisement and it fails to provide any reliable secondary sources. --JAVA <talk> 00:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC) — User:J4V4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Comment - it doesn't matter if an article doesn't have any sourcing, it's whether sourcing is available which I've shown does exist. - Whpq (talk) 00:43, 5 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 21:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: another AfD was relisted for procedural reasons due to nominator being blocked - Cool Hand Luke suggested renominating - should this be the case here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandrDmitri (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Debate wasn't sorted, along with one "delete" !vote from an spa, this makes a second relist reasonable. Further note, the block on the nominator was reduced to 31 hours and he is currently not blocked. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major industrial company showing extensive coverage at Google News. Should never have been a question on this one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:50, 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 deleted as having been created by a blocked/banned user in violation of the block PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 flu pandemic in Delaware[edit]

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

Editor is splitting an article about the whole USA into articles per state. Whilst the original article may need splitting, creating an article for each state is just bloat. Martin451 (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the articles be merged back into 2009 flu pandemic in the United States by state Martin451 (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for delete and merge as they are also small, and create an article bloat.

Martin451 (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add this related article:

2009 flu pandemic in Alabama

Reywas92 ^Talk 00:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging back into 2009 flu pandemic in the United States by state. No need for state-by-state articles, especially when they are so short. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy remerge back to main article. Although the list is long, it is ridiculous to split off every state. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Splitting one event into geographic sections makes no sense.Borock (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re-merge back into the parent article. no need for separate articles, but no need to lose the information either. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for content forking. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into main article, information is useful in one article. Tonker83 (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the articles 2009 flu pandemic in Arizona - 2009 flu pandemic in Arkansas - 2009 flu pandemic in California - 2009 flu pandemic in Colorado - 2009 flu pandemic in Connecticut - 2009 flu pandemic in Delaware have been deleted under A3, as they had nothing but "see also: links. Leaving only 2009 flu pandemic in North Carolina and 2009 flu pandemic in Alaska for consideration (they have content) Skier Dude (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Should not have been split, since there was not much info for the individual states. Edison (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the idiot who prematurely closed this AFD (and then undid his work, oops!), howsabout a nice hot cup of merge and redirect to the main article? There's not enough content in the remaining articles to warrant separate articles at this point. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge--not enough specific info for any one state to warrant own article, more useful to collect this info and keep it in one. No need for redirect...they're not useful or obvious search terms, and were only recently created (i.e., undo this whole mess entirely). DMacks (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as having been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Virtually all edits have been vandalism.

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

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

The result was no consensus - keep. Evil saltine (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glogster[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB based on references in the article. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the coverage I see are press releases. Gigs (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Weak Keep some of those sources seem reliable enough. Gigs (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I am not familiar with editing at Wikipedia, so sorry for editing): Why would you delete an article about a project using 300,000 students and teachers around the world?

There are coverage that are not press releases: TechCrunch, WebExpo.

And if you want more articles:

[35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.173.231 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove blogs (blogspot/wordpress etc) and other unreliable sources from your list of 79 links.--Otterathome (talk) 13:01, 6 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 21:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Debate wasn't sorted so let's give it another 7 days. Yes I know I'm breaking my own relist rules :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Notable since has a couple secondary sources. People might want to find out about this site, although the article doesn't really give much info more than clicking on the site itself would give you. Still no special reason to delete.Borock (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The CNet coverage is significant, the TechCrunch coverage is borderline significant, the rest seems unreliable, so notability is borderline. Due to the adverty tone, I come down on the side of delete unless there can be found a third reliable, significant source. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many articles on Wikipedia about social networks with no more than tens of thousands users. I guess Glogster has several hundred thousands. The article may need some rewriting but it is not neccessary to delete it.

[45] [46] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starsign479 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC) — Starsign479 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your links are a how-to guide for the site and a blog. Those don't qualify as reliable sources. Number of users is irrelevant; coverage in reliable sources and/or WP:WEB are what's relevant. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery has a footage about Glogster on [47]. See the Best of the Rest box, Glogster starts at 02.00.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice against a rewrite that discusses this person's work in detail with multiple independent reliable sources, and does not give undue weight to alleged impropriety. As the article stands now WP:BLP takes priority. Evil saltine (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Yadav[edit]

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

Non-notable but for one minor (in the scheme of things) event. Should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. ukexpat (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A pre-eminent case of conflict of interest in medicine. Also a very important pioneer in treatment of carotid artery disease. ROxBo (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to me to be a WP:BLP1E case; and most of the article concentrates on one (alleged) impropriety. Happy to be corrected if evidence can be presented that Dr Yadav is widely known and written about within his field though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Not a BLP1E case. Yadav was widely quoted in the press about stroke and cardiology before this conflict of interest was revealed, and easily passes WP:PROF - an article in NEJM on which he was first author in 2004 has got over 1000 cites in Google Scholar. Fences&Windows 23:30, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a prolific publisher with several notable publications- including the seminal and widely debated SAPPHIRE trial. He has become an icon for conflict of interest in medicine, which is why I included this article. Stents have been a very controversial therapy in medicine and he is most certainly at the heart of the matter. Chicagolive (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks to me like a clear case of WP:BLP1E. He has not been "widely quoted" as claimed. Seems rather trivial to me. ƒ(Δ)² 09:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E is meant to protect people from articles like this. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:04, 22 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) 03:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Pirate Radio[edit]

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

Another non-notable radio station. Fails WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So a magistrate's court isn't a WP:RS? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, since magistrates are a bunch of unqualified, brainless hicks. But even if it was, a court report is not evidence of notability, and even if that was, there is no such coverage. Not in the article, not found by google. If you insist on claiming that there is such coverage, provide it. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "unqualified, brainless hick" nature of magistrates is hardly a relevant issue to WP policy. We care about the recording of objective sources, and you can hardly question them to that level! I fail to see how you can claim a court report doesn't provide a reliable source, as we see them.

It might surprise you that whilst I wouldn't call for this particular article's deletion, I wouldn't strongly support it either. As mentioned on the other AfD, Radio Jackie North and Merseyland Alternative Radio (and their key personnel) were significant Liverpool pirate stations in the development of the overall scene, Liverpool Pirate Radio (and many others) wasn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A court report is not a reliable source for determining the notability of the station. If I get arrested for theft, charged at the magistrates court and sentenced at the Crown Court, I (by your definition) can pass WP:N. In addition, I'm yet to see any coverage of these stations by reliable, third-party sources whatever you claim, so however "significant" they are, that obviously isn't enough. Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A magistrate's court record is a primary source and certainly in no way satisfies notability requirements of substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. We look for coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. There is a newspaper article, but it shows nothing more significant than a hobby operation. The newspaper article just says he broadcast for 3 weeks before he was busted and fined. Edison (talk) 18:11, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, a court report is a reliable report of sorts, but it's a long way from the multiple non-trivial coverage that's expected on most Wikipedia articles. I'd rather we didn't have a system where every petty offender is rewarded with a Wikipedia article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:34, 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. NW (Talk) 00:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Teenagers Must Die![edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks multiple, independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage demonstrating notability for a Wikipedia article. A bunch of reviews from highly nonnotable, trivial fluff sources only proves the complete lack of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability per WP:NF is met through multiple in-depth, non-trivia coverage in reliable sources is met meet requirements for notability... Fangoria, and OC Weekly... as well as multiple reviews in genre-specific sources, such as Evil Dread, Horror Queen, Scream Television, This Is Some Scene, Film Arcade, Horror Society, Killer Reviews, Drunken Zombies, Unbound Zine, Fatally-Yours 1, Fatally-Yours 2, and a hoard of others. While not all are like Rotten Tomatoes, guideline expects editors to look at all available sources and consider reliability in context to what is being sourced. Horror sources review horror films. Notability was established at the last AfD... and here we are again. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that long list of sources at the end is EXACTLY the kind of crap nothing content sites with no notability and trivial coverage that DO NOT meet Wikipedia's standards in any way. In fact we ought to work on getting them added to the spam filter so people like you can't try to promote them as reliable sites. Fangoria would be notable, by a MySpace blog claiming to be Fangoria isn't necessarily, and we'd need a site to an actual printed review for verification, and even there we need more to meet our minimum criteria. DreamGuy (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Myspace page isn't claiming to be Fangoria, it is a Myspace profile for the movie. Whether not that blog or profile is fan made or not is completely irrelevant (though the owner of the profile might find themselves under violation of copyright law if it is fan made), but it shows that the movie has been reviewed in that publication. "we'd need a site to an actual printed review" is shown in that Myspace page. The movie has been in a magazine/publication twice, which establishes notability. OC Weekly is reliable, as well as Fangoria. And both happen to have wikipedia pages! How are they not reliable? You may argue that the other publications aren't reliable, or whatnot, but the fact that two reliable publications have done an in-depth review on this movie, proves that this movie is notable. Nevertheless, I vote keep. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep due to near unanimous keep the previous time around, but more specifically due to multiple, independent non-trivial coverage from reliable sources demonstrating the common sense standard of WP:N that is sufficient for the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit. Fangoria is an especially relevant source for these purposes, as it is one of THE most notable and reputable sources when it comes to sourcing horror films. Great job to Michael for finding so many, as were also found the first time around. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that people use "common sense" when what they really mean is "exactly the oooposite of what our policies actually say"? "Near unanimous keep the previous time around" means absolutely nothing, especially with so many accounts whose sole purpose here seems to be voting Keep on every article on AFD regardless of merit. Some of these accounts should really be blocked from AFD by now for disregarding policy and disruption. DreamGuy (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You count Fangoria as a non-notable fluff source?! That is quite possibly THE magazine when it comes to horror films (I actually have a stack of back issues ready to put on the shelves I built for my library). Anyway, such a statement reveals lack of expertise in this area. No one with any even remote knowledge on horror films could dismiss that source and it has a regular review of the film, not a mere mention in an article about some other film, but a straight up review specifically of it, i.e. non-trivial coverage in a reliable source. Please do not make frivolous nominations. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good thing sources have been added, because anything with a name like "Stupid Teenagers Must Die!" is going to draw the wrong kind of attention for a long lived article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of those reviews are from notable sources. Dream Focus 08:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage demonstrating enough notability for an article. If you agree that only "some" of the sources are notable, then we ought to remove all the unreliable ones and see what's left, which is next to nothing, and certainly nothing demonstrating a reason to have an article. DreamGuy (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in reliable source Fangoria is in-depth and non trivial. The article in reliable source OC Weekly is in-depth and non-trivial. One source would be singular. Two sources is multiple. Further, neither guideline nor policy state or even imply that a reliable source has to be itself notable.
From WP:RS" "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made"
The common sense being denigrated above allows editors to actually think and weigh guideline and policy when forming opinions. When dealing with a horror-genre-specific source, if such can be seen as generally reliable and credible in regards the horror genre, the level of their reliability may be considered in context to what is being asserted and sourced. One would not expect them to be even minimally reliable if they were writing about politics or history, but an editor IS alllowed to consider if they might have an acceptable level of reliability when they write about their field of expertise: IE: horror films.
The coverages offered by Fangoria and OC Weekly are significant, in-depth, and definitely non-trivial. All other sources being called trivial, are themselves significant, in-depth, and non-trivial... and they further support the notability already established by the significant, in-depth, non-trivial coverages of Fangoria and OC Weekly. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Mr. Schmidt. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Courteously and politely disagreeing with a nomination is no reason to have one's comment labeled as disruptive... nor is simply disagreeing with a nominator a valid reason for an editor to be topic-banned from AfDs. Had any editor voicing a keep been themselves rude and accusatory, it would be a different matter... as incivility is never to be condoned. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many notable sources. Kendric_Apple (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC). — Kendric_Apple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Call for nominator to withdraw Even after the recent deletion of reviews to which the nominator objects-- while, mysteriously, leaving the "Spam" tag in place to discredit the article even after the concerns have been addressed-- the subject is obviously notable. This is an article on a low-budget independent film. To hold it up to the same standards as a studio-produced, mainstream film is a disengenious way to belittle the subject, and, if commonly put into practise, would limit Wikipedia's coverage of cinema to the big, boring, mainstream Hollywood studio productions. It would promote the kind of bias which we all wish to avoid.

The question is not: Is this film "notbable" in comparison to Saving Private Ryan, but is this film notable as an independent, low-budget film? And the answer is obviously "yes". Even with the loss of appropriate independent reviews from sites which review the out-of-the-mainstream-- which is where one would seek a review for such a film-- the film's screenings at film festivals, and its winning of two awards at a notable film festival make it obviously "notable" according to any rational definition of the term. The Fangoria review seals it: Fangoria is a major, national publication on the horror genre. Fangoria's review of the film confers notability-- in the real world sense. If Wikipedia's definition of notability steps up and says "No, the real-world authorities are wrong, we know better than them, and we say it is not notable," then we do not have a rational definition of "notability". In truth, however, it is not Wikipedia's definition that is at fault here, but its overly-literalistic interpretation, which, if acted on, would create bias.

Why is this article up for deletion for a second time after a few months when the first ended in withdrawal of nomination? Nomination for deletion articles on notable subjects wastes the nominator's time as much as it does editors whose time could otherwise be spent contributing content. The nominator of the previous AfD had the honesty to see he had made a mistake and to admit it. He withdrew the nomination. I hope that current nominator also has such a capacity for self-reflection and, for the good of Wikipedia, withdraws this needless AfD. If he does not, then my vote is Keep Dekkappai (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be so condescending. The spam tag was left because some of the refs are still iffy (3,4 and 9 are questionable at best). Good sourcing is still a must no matter how bad the movie. Reviews are fine as long as they are notable - none of them were. - Josette (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"notable" is not the criterion for reviews, nor even that their sources be notable. The requirement is that they been from reliable sources for the subject, and give the work significant coverage. Obviously the better known the source, the stronger the case, but notability of it is not the standard. In specialized genres, owe can expect sources which will be specialized and appropriate only for those genres, and they may not meet our normal requirements--this has long been accepted by science fiction, where certain blogs, as defined by experts in the subject, have always been accepted here. Not knowing the field, I cannnot comment on the specific sources here. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you don't like my choice of words. I left the references 3, 4 and 9 because they are possibly well known enough - in other words - notable enough blogs. Reviews must be from a somewhat reliable (notable) source to be good enough for use in an article on Wikipedia - even in an article such as this. - Josette (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS DGG: Notability is a related notion here, if not the exact concept, if a site is not notable, we can think that perhaps it's not relevant what that site thinks. We are not a collection of links. The "spammish" tagging the article gets in the links section is valid. Josette (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horror genre experts would quite logically be the sources to seek for horror genre reviews. Some research on a few a the sites available for consideration...

Evil Dread review by Jayson Champion: A reliable source for reviews of films in the horror genre. Not a blog. Not SPS.
This is Some Scene review: According to a bit of actual research, I find "Guerilladelphia - A Declaration of Independents! Guerilladelphia has developed ThisIsSomeScene.com to report and review the entertainment world in true Guerilladelphia style! R. James Ippoliti created Guerilladelphia and This Is Some Scene and is joined by Chris Blake Sasser, Kristin Theckston, Andrea Fix and Adam Young in covering entertainment news, reviews and interviews. We are in the process of adding to the Guerilladelphia crew of writers."... and then they share a list of editorial staff. Nope, not a blog. Blogs do not have editorial oversight. Other editors are free to follow the links and see I am cazy or making this up.
Dorkgasm offers a review by their senior staff writer Kenneth Holm. Editorial oversite. Not a blog. Not SPS. No more user-driven than the New York Times. Dorkgasm reviews horror genre films. The article is about a film. Makes sense to me.
Fatally Yours has an editorial staff. Not a blog. Not SPS.
Fatally Yours offers an in-depth interview with the director about his film. Not a blog. Not an SPS.
Fatally Yours also does an in-depth review of the film too. Not a blog. Not an SPS.
Horror Society review is also another by a source that specializes in reviews of films in the horror genre. Not a bblog. Not SPS.
Killer Reviews offers a review by staff, not by users. Not a blog. Not SPS.
Movies Made Me Do It offers a decent review, and invites commenets, however it too is not a blog. Not SPS. To use the reader comments would be wrong. To use the staff review would be appropriate.
Killer Reviews also is one that offers an in-depth interview with the director about his film. Not a blog. Not a SPS.
Film Arcade offers a staff review and then accepts reader comments. Staff review, okay. User comments, not okay.
Dead Lantern offers an in-depth staff review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
Scream TV offers a staff review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
The New York Times as least shows the film is not a hoax. Not a blog... or is it? Hmmmm...
DVD Resurrections offers an editorial review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
Horor-Fanatics offers a review and release informations. Not a blog. Not SPS.

More research underway. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these sites just are not influential. With an Alexa rank lower than 500,000 and less than 120 inbound links for the whole site, Fatally-yours does not appear to be a source that many people go to. So the fact that it reviewed a movie in depth, while interesting, even complimentary to the site's staff for their hard work, isn't really important to our readers. If a site is not "notable", we can think that perhaps it's not relevant what that site thinks. We are not a collection of links. The spammish tagging is valid. I kept the sites that have significant traffic or that appear to have at least some influence. But I removed the ones (whether blogs, fansites, or whatever) that are used nowhere else in the project and that have low traffic, such as Fatally-yours. Many are worse. Dorkgasm for example has only 20 inbound links. As Erik says, we should be providing only external links that are important and relevant, not every external link we can scrape up. Josette (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity outside the genre is not a measure of reliability. I appreciate that you are doing some research, but WP:RS does not say anything about influential or popular or notable... nor does it say that a site must be judged by Alexa traffic counts. That you feel a resource must itself be "notable" in order to to be considered... is not what WP:RS says or implies.

Fatally Yours was founded in 2003 and has an established pubication record [48][49]. Editorial staff include genre-specific experts Sarah Jahier, Dana R. Davidson, Gabrielle Faust, Jude Felton, Voodoun Romance, Theron Neel, Dr. Royce Clemons, Jeffrey J. Timbrell, Willy Greer, and Mitch Emerson [50]. The site as a horror genre site is recommended by Readers Voice [51]. The site is itself used as a reliable source by other reliable sources [52]. It is their expertise in the field that qualifies them, not Alexa traffic counts... though in noting popularity, the site receives over 8,000 unique visits each month from readers who go to it for information on Horror genre films[53]. Any editor who disagrees that traffic counts are the only suitable measure of reliability, may feel free to return the removed source. What's important to Wikipedia readers is being able to verify outside these pages anything written within them. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fatally-Yours.com is unreliable because it is a self-published website run by horror film fans. These people are not authoritative when it comes to horror films. Just because fans come together does not bestow them with credibility to review films. In addition, the Google News Search shows other ways the term is used. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the spammish links need to be removed from the article. - Josette (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a review is self-promoting SPAM, then that can certainly be addressed. If the link is not self-promoting SPAM, then it would serve the project to better determine just what it is, rather than painting them all with the same brush. Guideline accepts that certain SPS may be considered reliable. It'd serve the project to determine which ones are okay. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fangoria coverage, but I strongly advise against using the majority of the horror film websites that MichaelQSchmidt posted above. While they are commendable community contributions by a dedicated group of horror film fans, this does not equate true authorities in this particular topic. Fangoria is such an authority that should be aspired to in sourcing. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 20:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough... I suppose my own concerns were in the way ALL were being asserted as trivial fluff by the nominator. Had his statement perhaps been that though all were in-depth, not all had been yet individually qualified as reliable in context to this specific genre, I would have probably replied that the ones that were accepted as reliable enough, were themselves then reliable enough to show the genre film's notability... and that the ones that have not yet been investigated might then be ignored. But that was not how this AfD began. To categorically state that in-depth articles in OC Weekly and Fangoria were trivial mentions when it just was not the case... well, genre-specific in-depth covereage needed to be shown. Thank you for your input. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:21, 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. No sources; nothing to merge. NW (Talk) 00:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Legler[edit]

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

Article about a game show contestant with limited notability and no sources regarding, not just his one time accomplishment. TM 13:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, his accomplishment makes him notable in the general sense of the term, but not in the Wikipedia sense of the term. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not in its own article (which appears to be integrated with other articles about top-game show winners), this article has information that shouldn't be deleted -- it could go into something like American game show winnings records if consensus is against keeping.--Milowent (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with American game show winnings records and/or Twenty One (game show) - no source coverage of him besides this brief week. Joshdboz (talk) 15:59, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 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 merge to Tiny and Toya. Closing as "merge" per the suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia "Toya" Carter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Antonia "Toya" Carter

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO and doesn't appear to have any notability outside of being the ex-wife of rapper Lil Wayne. To date, she's appeared in one reality series. There's also no other reliable sources to be found on the subject aside from the official site for the reality show. Pinkadelica ^♣ 13:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: With Tiny and Toya. Not sufficiently notable for a separate article and the biographical info from BET could easily be moved to the other article.--RDBury (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tiny and Toya. Rationale as above. --Whoosit (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Jake Wartenberg 01:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of vampire traits[edit]

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

Nothing but original research, personal essay in chart form, major violation of WP:NOT's prohibition against indiscriminate lists of information. No way to salvage this to meet our policies and no reason to try to do so that would serve any encyclopedic purpose. Prodded, prod was endorsed, then someone objected to force an AFD on it, so here we sit. DreamGuy (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This, by nature, is original research and will quickly become an unmaintainable mess as more and more plot junk and cruft are added from the numerous fictional universes that deal with vampires. There is no potential for meaningful encyclopedic expansion. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While interesting and useful to vampire fans, it is WP:Original research and belongs on a vampire website or blog not WP. Borock (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Wow. Highly deletable collection of synthesis. --EEMIV (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would love to see this transwiki'd Billbowery (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could be transwiki'd or deleted, but in either case it simply doesn't belong on WP. This article could be used as an example for both WP:NOT and WP:OR. MacMed^talk _stalk 02:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Vampires are the subject of tons of scholarly research, and this is a relatively out of universe perspective. It could be make into a FL or FA if the right person cared enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? A featured article??? As I pointed out on the talk page, this is a comparison of the fictional traits of fictional beings in an assortment of fictional universes. This is would make for poor tripod page circa 1999, pretty much the opposite of the content we should be striving for on Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's lots of precedent for an index like this on Wikipedia. Like the other examples of these indexes, no conclusion is inferred, so it's not synthesis. Adding references (or adding them back) should be enough to move this out of original research space. If there's worries that this could become unmaintainable fancruft, the notability rules could be applied (which could mean pulling Blade and True Blood out of this list, since they've had a limited effect on the depiction of vampires in culture). --Skrapion (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean add them back? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - He added a bunch of unreliable sources (the Buffy Wikia for one) that somebody else removed. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see. That's too bad. I added a real ref for the first fact. Vampire is an FA, so all the European vampire stuff can probably be grabbed from there. The movie stuff is debatable, and its inclusion should be based on what truly reliable sources can be found. I will say I know of a scholarly ref that could really cover vampires in Dungeons and Dragons, if we care. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I outlined on the talk page, several books on vampires discuss and compare at length the various attributes and vulnerabilities. I was lukewarm on the page when it appeared, but the idea has grown on me. I do apologise for not getting in sources last night as I fell asleep before getting 'round to it. The comparison between vampire traits in various media is notable in itself and I think makes for a valuable listy/graphic adjunct to the vampire article and its various daughter articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with your last point. The concept of this article is exactly what we should be avoiding on Wikipedia. This is fancruft, pure and simple. Vampires might have been studied in scholarly sources, but this is going to degenerate into "Buffy vs Blade vs.. vs.. vs.." and I certainly don't want to start seeing Comparison of robots armaments in video games and fiction or Comparison of energy sources in collectible trading card games. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if it has or will degrade. That's not what we base our deletes on. Also, Casliber took Vampire to FA, so he knows the sources. It sounds like you'd like to remove Buffy and Blade stuff. If you have reasons to think that will improve the article, go for it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctorfluffy, you can disagree all you like. Articles like this one and this one add an out-of-universe context - namely Hays Code/censorship and colour vs B/W movies and how attributes are portrayed. I wouldn't take out those tow, and I'll add in twilight soon if someone else doesn't. Each potential article has to be taken on its merits. Doctorfluffy, not many themes could satisfy notability cirteria but this is in fact one of them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we can rename it to something that will make the topic more scholarly? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, a section or two of prose in the main vampire article about differences in the portrayal of vampire abilities/traits treated in a formal, encyclopedic manner is one thing, but this is something else entirely. It's a bunch of charts where most of the possible sources are going to be DVD commentary and episode summaries. Even if my concerns about the degradation of the article prove false, we're going about this in the wrong direction. You're trying to find sources to support this mess instead of taking the available "good" sources and building the content. I still have my doubts there is enough scholarly material to support a topic like this, but you'd be more of an expert on that than me. There is truly an abundance of sources where the focus of the work is a comparison of vampire traits? Combining a bunch of sources that deal with vampire traits in each universe independently into anything is synthesis, even if you try to do it in an objective manner with charts and whatnot. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 04:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the sources thus far? No original synthesis is needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read them. There are not enough for a standalone article. The one about standardization of of vampire abilities in all fictional works is largely tongue in cheek. I don't know how much, if any, of it could be considered scholarly. The other talks about changes in the genre as a whole. Direct comparisons between the fictional universes (the topic of our article) are only used to support the authors' commentary on the overall trends in vampire portrayal. The focus of the work needs to match very closely the topic of the article or we stray into synthesis land. Neither of these support the article under consideration here. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 05:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something like the first few sections Zombies in popular culture is what I think this concept should end up as. A discussion on the evolution of the portrayals and the associated fictional traits (as supported by sources similar to those you've already found), not a direct comparison between the various universes. Then throw that into the currently list-heavy Vampires in popular culture and call it a day. But that's entirely not what this article is so there's nothing to be salvaged from here and in turn it should be deleted outright. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 05:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, there's too much good info for anything other than a rename or a merge. Anyways, the article is probably safe at this point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, "too much good info". Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 12:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vampires are extremely notable, a fictional element which has been around for at least a thousand years. Listing the descriptions of them, how they changed, is a noteworthy topic. And there are references. Dream Focus 09:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about the differences in the portrayal over the years. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 12:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually, it is. The different major sources of information about vampires, which influenced how people thought of them, from ancient stories to modern day comic books and movies. Dream Focus 23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're drawing conclusions that you're hoping the reader will make as well. The article has nothing about the evolution at all - it's some charts. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 04:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to another site which is more suitable for this material. It's interesting, but it appears to constitute original research by synthesis. I'd hate to see it disappear completely, though. *** Crotalus *** 13:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oh hell no~~ - delete, transwiki, get rid of it! Though each individual entry may be able to be sourced, you're citing primary sources for things like Bram Stoker's Dracula, and nonprimary sources for dubious notability books, TV series and other nonsources. This is a magnet for fancruft and the sources do not distinguish how vampires have changed over the years in different mediums and fictional universes. The individual sources discuss individual vampires, which are then synthesized on this page to create a massive document of original research. There's no way of deciding whose conception of a vampire should be included or removed, much of the "powers" will have to be interpreted or guessed at, and there's not going to be any reliable source that documents each one. Even if there was, the proper approach would be a paragraph or section in vampire discussing this in broad terms. The existence of other pages suggests those should be deleted as well, and is not an argument to keep this one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, and with regret. The information contained here might be suitable for merger, in text form, at Vampire literature#Traits of vampires in fiction, where citations to original sources would surely be appropriate. But this, I fear, is original research by synthesis. And besides, as Cecil Adams has observed, "to kill a vampire it is first necessary to determine its ethnic origin."[54] A list enabling you to recognize vampires by ethnicity would first be necessary. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Heavily reliant on OR, unexplained/arbitrary selection criteria. Why only (western) European folklore, excluding Asian and other nonwestern cultures. Why Blade (the movie) rather than the whole Marvel Comics mythos? Why not Dark Shadows? Why isn't Polidori's version considered. Or Varney. Or Laurel Hamilton. Based on one editor's opinion of which legends/fictions are most significant, and therefore unencyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So long as we can cite these examples, I see no reason why not to add them here as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am almost leaning towards a speedy keep here as anytime the nonsense non-word "cruft" is evoked, we pretty much have to keep by default, but in any event, this example of verifiable unoriginal research does serve a valuable comparative and navigational purpose. I have already transwikied it to a couple of the wikis I am an admin at, but see a lot of potential in the suggestions to merge above per WP:PRESERVE. I am not, by contrast, seeing any pressing need to delete that trumps trying to merge or redirect first per WP:BEFORE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly subjective OR, per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and WLU. Existing "comparison articles" tabulate highly quantifiable, measurement-based technical data, not subjective judgements (such as which vampires are more "alluring") based on one editor's opinion of which versions of legends and fictions are most significant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the alluring column was largely inspired by other Wikipedia articles. ("Since the time of Bela Lugosi's Dracula (1931) the vampire, male or female, has usually been portrayed as an alluring sex symbol.", "They are usually quite attractive, even beautiful", "There is, however, a very small sub-genre, pioneered in Murnau's seminal Nosferatu (1922) in which the portrayal of the vampire is similar to the hideous creature of European folklore.") --Skrapion (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you're going to find verifiable sources for the article to confirm which TV vampires are 'alluring' and which are not 'alluring', etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I have a bit more faith in our ability to find references than you do, given how often the subject of the romanticization of vampires is discussed, and how nobody has challenged the statements I've listed above. In any case, if that's a problem, then the proper solution is to remove — or add citationneeded tags to — columns which are subjective, rather than delete the whole article. --Skrapion (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not really OR, because it comes from other source material. It isn't really synthesis, because it isn't drawing a conclusion. It is just drawing in several lists in one composite article and making tables. This wouldn't be OR or SYN if it was several independent articles "List of vampire traits in True Blood", "List of vampire traits in Bram Stoker", etc. Combining these disparate lists to one article is fine. In fact, I bet if there were seven different "List of vampire traits in Fiction Xy" there would be repeated calls to merge them from some quarters. There is ample precedent for comparison articles tabulating existing data. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete as many have said, it's OR and full of poorly defined and subjective terms. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is within the Wikipedia's goal of incorporating elements of specialized encyclopedias. Deletion is an option for articles which cannot be improved; this article can be improved. Rray (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MOre refs of course, and we gotta add Twilight all over the place :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Casliber, but I'd like to hear Rray's answer. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 04:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, no encyclopaedic value New seeker (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not OR when you have references. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

*Delete, people have to get some perspective, vampires are not even real... some of the info could be compressed and added to Vampire, but probably not, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- So... this is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote? What is the policy basis for deletion? Since you add that the information could be provided elsewhere, it isn't the OR issue that others are objecting to. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

***Whaaa? I shouldn't have said the above really, I just didn't want to say exactly the same as the others. Basically, I don't think this is a notable enough subject to warrent it's own article. It may be written from an out-of-universe perspective (mainly), but even if vampires themselves are extremely notable, I don't think a collection of fictional traits of fictional beings in several fictional universes is encyclopedic at all. I believe transwikification would be the best option, as it undeniably has potential, but isn't suitable for a general interest encyclopedia, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Know what? I hate to change, I know how some frown upon it, but I'm gonna say Keep now. SchmuckyTheCat's short comment at the current bottom of the page has changed my mind. Far too long to even compress anyway. I still think it's unencyclopedic, but for some reason I now believe it to be notable-er. Who cares what I think anyway. Not like I'm going to change the outcome of this discussion. And I don't know how the hell people think it's OR. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite suffering existential trauma from Spongefrog's shocking revelation that vampires are not real, I still think the only bad thing about this article is the 'orrible red and green Yes-No template. Anarchangel (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quick fast and in a hurry - pure WP:OR that violates both WP:V and WP:NOT. Throwing out some references to support individual elements does not make it anything else. Wikipedia is not for editorial self-publication in prose or chart form. Vampires as a topic has an article and is notable, this is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not OR when you have references which make wholesale comparisons. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assembling information sourceable to the primary works in an obvious way is not the least OR , just the routine way to write encyclopedia articles. Expandable, improbable, verifiable content, notable topic. Tis is thesort of topic Wikipediadoes very well, and there;'s no reason we should be ashamed of it. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Presenting properly sourced information in a comparative table does not violate WP:SYNTH, regardless of whether you're comparing hardware specs or vampire traits. (The precedent for this goes far, far beyond just the "Comparison of X" articles. For instance, if you browse through featured lists, you'll find many comparative tables combining information from different sources. This is perfectly appropriate: while the information may be organized in a novel way - something true of all Wikipedia articles to some extent - there are no novel conclusions being drawn.) Editors working on this article do need to take care to avoid original research (particularly inferential leaps from primary sources), but there's nothing preventing it from being an OR-free article.--Chris Johnson (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have read a bit of scholarship on vampires and it certainly does compare vampires and their traits across time. I would hope that eventually this chart would include more types of vampires and better sources, but I see nothing inherently problematic about this article. The research has already been done by others (see, for example, The Vampire in Nineteenth-Century English Literature), which means that the article is not OR, and it is certainly a notable topic, as entire books have been written on the topic. Awadewit (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Awadewit and Casliber. Nathan^T 22:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as maintainable, discriminate, verifiable, encyclopedic, well-defined, objective, unoriginal research that is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Moreover, calling something "cruft" is never a valid reason for deletion. I am, however, not opposed to it being merged as well and in turn redirected with edit history intact, but clearly no reason to redlink. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Awa, Casliber, DGG etc. It's not synthesis to list items referenced to different sources in a comparative table; no synthetic analysis is made that I could see. Much too long to merge. Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent keep. Editors have claimed that the available sources justify and support such an article, and I believe them. Additionally, humanities topics are always easier to accuse of "synthesis", a weakness of Wikipedia that seems rooted in the subjectivity of humanities topics vs. "scientific" ones. Such a claim fails to recognize that humanities articles can legitimately summarize/constrast/compare scholarly views from reliable sources. Every list of "facts" of Wikipedia is a synthesis, but no one claims "synthesis" when they see "facts". Whether you are compiling lists of "facts" or compiling critical, inherently subjective views in the humanities using reliable sources, you are engaging in analogous activities with respect to the field of study. Outriggr (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an extreme case of original research. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How so when the subject is verifiable in reliable sources? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accusations of "original research" are off-base because the article doesn't contain any facts that are not present in the sources. It isn't trying to promote an original point of view either. Sounds like another "I don't like lists in pop-culture topics" debate. But it is a well-organized and well-sourced one, and I feel it adds encyclopedic value. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of books which detail and analyse the traits of vampires in both reality and fiction. These include the The Vampire Encyclopedia, Science of Vampires and The Natural History of Vampires for example. The topic is therefore hugely notable and there is no case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The many sources for vampire powers are great for the main Vampire and Vampires in fiction article, but their existance does not mandate the need for this list. There are 10,000s of fictional works that include vampires - this list is just the start of a huge, unworkable cruftlist, imo. Also, much of it remains unsources. showing that while some vampire incarnations are sourcable, many are not. If this small start cannot be sourced, i do not see how a comprehensive list ever could be. Tabulated comparison article are only suitable for documenting objective facts, not ever changing fictional attibutes.YobMod 17:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do note that Vampires in fiction is a redlink, the argument that this material might properly belong there is a redlinkherring. And the different traits of vampires in different fictional settings are very much objective and sourcable facts. You can answer the question, "Do vampires in True Blood see themselves in the mirror?" as a yes or no question. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  - Maybe it's because Vampires exist only in fiction. Sorry, ignore that, I just had to say it. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 21:00, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Chinyoti[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT, nothing in gnews. created by an editor who was only on WP for 1 day. Unless someone can find something in Urdu... LibStar (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- plenty of newspapers in there. I don't speak any Urdu either but it's not that hard to spell his name and look at the domain names where he gets GHits. And if you want attention from Urdu speakers, use the deletion sorting mechanism instead of vaguely mentioning in your nomination statement "unless someone can find something in Urdu". cab (talk) 08:38, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 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. — Jake Wartenberg 01:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Gibson Mercer[edit]

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

Contested prod. While Jackie Mercer is found via a Google Book search, the mentions there are trivial and do not go to establish notability. The only "claim to fame" this person has is that the were used as this basis of a character in a book by Jack Kerouac. NW (Talk) 01:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep besides the one I listed to start with, she';s in all the bios of Kerouac, & his published letters, in extensive discussions. Girl friend and inspiration for a major character, People significant in the life of a major writer are notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 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 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the real person per WP:N, or perhaps redirect to the article on Keroac. Interestingly, the character appears more notable; perhaps enough to have its own article. Them From Space 03:06, 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, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If she was that influential on Kerouac, where are her mentions in the scholarly literature? I tried searching without the Gibson, nothing. Abductive (reasoning) 01:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You find lots of book mentions if you just use Jackie Gibson.[55] --Milowent (talk) 21:22, 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 merge to BakBone Software. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ColdSpark, Inc.[edit]

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

~~This company doesn't seem to have any notability. The article is almost A7 worthy under the CSD.~~ Irbisgreif (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching without the "Inc."; I'm getting 144 Google News sources. Abductive (reasoning) 08:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A good bit, but not all, of the sources that I'm finding there seem to be trivial coverage. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Major papers report that they got bought out by a company Wikipedia has no article on. Abductive (reasoning) 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you name the company? It might be more appropriate for them to have an article instead, and merge this one into it. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - BakBone Software. It seems that already have an article. Abductive (reasoning) 00:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per User:Abductive's findings. Good show, sir! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge yeah, someone merge it into that, better solution. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:08, 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 keep. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qilin in popular culture[edit]

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

Trivial listcruft that shows no signs of notability. If there is any important ones, they belong in a small section in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selected material, if sourceable, to the main article. if no sources found (hopefully the linked articles already mention the connection), delete per nom.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with one exception, the material is completely unsourced and therefore unsuitable for merging. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep 'Trivial' is an aesthetic posing as notability, and all nominator's arguments, including listcruft are various forms of unbacked WP:IDL assertions. Sourcing is a talk page issue, and yet is the only argument worth addressing, by default. Nine out of nine citations for the first nine instances in popular culture; it is as easy as entering the source and 'Kirin' on Google or Yahoo and hitting 'enter'. Deletionists are lazy.

Anarchangel (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly.

These references are needed, and it has just been shown that they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speaking as a user of Wikipedia as well as an editor, I often find WP's summaries of pop culture references very useful, however much they may offend the aesthetic sensibilities of some encyclopedists. I did a little sorting to bring some order to the article. Nareek (talk) 11:25, 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) 03:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breathing Port Robinson[edit]

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

Non notable documentary. No evidence of sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources in the grand total of 38 unique GHits. Fails WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one item from a local community paper, and an interview in a college newspaper are listed in the article. There is no other coverage I could find nor is there any indication of significant critical reviews or awards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 4 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 21:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:29, 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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le Zombie[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article about a fanzine lacks the multiple instances of independent, reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage to demonstrate notability for a separate article. Some recently added trivia was sourced to a book to try to up the source count, but still fails in demonstrating the level of notability required for having its own article. DreamGuy (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The five reference seem to be independent but don't support notability. Keep if more reliable, verifiable and independent sources are provided Rirunmot (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE points 1, 3, and 4. It's on the low end of WP:N significant coverage unless I missed something.

Use [show](to the right) to view the details

University of Iowa feature collection of the month for May 2008.
Archived in the M. Horvat Collection at the University of Iowa. (this is towards WP:CREATIVE point 4)
All our yesterdays pages 124-125.
The immortal storm page 202 (it's not clear how long the coverage is there), and mentions on pages 240 plus 250.
The eighth stage of fandom Page 114 documents evidence of recognition.
The Science fiction reference book Page 95 Documents WP:CREATIVE point 3 and or 4.
The encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy through 1968 Google does not show snippet but it's evidence that the fanzine is getting included in print reference works.
Brave new words
Brave New Words Entry in a Oxford University Press publication which has a good reputation as a [WP:RS]] and inclusion in the diction evidence of WP:CREATIVE point 4.
In search of wonder page 85 more WP:CREATIVE point 3 and 4.
JSTOR says the 'zine is covered in Fanzine Research: Some Sercon Musings - I can access JSTOR tomorrow if needed.
- Don't bother; it's a passing mention in a footnote. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge companion to science fiction - citation
The list continues including Science fiction, fantasy, and weird fiction magazines, The Visual encyclopedia of science fiction, The science fiction encyclopedia, Seekers of tomorrow: masters of science fiction, Hell's cartographers: some personal histories of science fiction writers, Science fiction: a teacher's guide and resource book, and A handbook of science fiction and fantasy: a collection of material acting.

--Marc Kupper|talk 07:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this is one of the definitive fanzines, one of those which shaped the culture of science fiction. The list runs on and on because it's impossible to discuss science fiction of that era without Le Zombie. This is the fanzine in which the term "space opera" was first used by its coiner, Wilson "Bob" Tucker; the zine in which the first attested use of the term "fan fiction" occurs (albeit in the original rather than the modern meaning); etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC) (full disclosure: Tucker was a friend of mine, we corresponded by e-mail until a few months before his death; and I mourn his passing to this day)[reply]

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