< 1 April	3 April >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies[edit]

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

Suggest this article should be deleted. The actual empirical majority of the content is about its closure which was now over 8 years ago. The rest of the article references some rather niche academics at a rather middling UK University. The vast majority of UK University Sub-Departments don't have their own wiki page. Why should this? Jstriker (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. Closed research centres are as notable as ones that are still open. And "considerable attention in the national press" establishes notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The attention in the national press you refer to was only as a result of the closure of the school. It seems in this case that the controvery over the department's closure was more notable than the department itself ever was. Jstriker (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - actually if you go back and look in newspaper indexes, not just google news archives, you'll find that this place had plenty of newspaper coverage while it was open too. newspapers, books, academic journals, just tons of material, it's quite famous. --Buridan (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
Keep Notable institution in the formation of a field of study. See for example the chapter entitled "The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies" by Michael Green in "Rereading English" by Peter Widdowson (Routledge, 2002) (the sort of link that Google Scholar can provide) which begins "Though cultural studies was substantially pioneered at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham University, these notes attempt neither a history of significant intellectual developments there..." Ths is notability. AllyD (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand the rules for notability of organisations, the sources must be "independent of the subject". The book you refer to does not seem to be independent of the subject - Michael Green used to be the Director of this particular institution. Jstriker (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your point: the book cited was edited by Peter Widdowson (obituary: [1]) and published by Routledge, a respected academic publisher? AllyD (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly the independence wikipedia strives for in its secondary sources for notability is it - the auteur of the article you reference was also closely tied to the institution in question to the extent that he rose to the rank of Director there. The appeal to authority of mentioning the publisher's kudos is weak in this instance - analogy: a nationally syndicated journalist writes a book and then reviews it himself in a newspaper. Just because that newspaper is nationally syndicated does not make the source notable due to "non independence from the subject". It is the auteur who matters and wikipedia regulations state the source must be independent of the subject. If the institution is notable, surely there are better secondary sources than this - perhaps by notable academics from other fields? Jstriker (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More broadly, I do recommend that Google Scholar search. Taking a few citations about the CCCS: "earned an international reputation for its empirical research and innovatory theory" (Off-centre: Feminism and cultural studies); "in the works of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, has recently had a significant and influential impact in the United States" (History, politics and postmodernism: Stuart Hall and cultural studies); "the project of cultural studies which was developed by the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies" (Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity, and Politics between the Modern and the Postmodern). AllyD (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Hall founded this institution so again, this example doesn't seem to adhere to wiki policy regarding "independence from the subject". Jstriker (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 books I cited are not by Stuart Hall but respectively by Franklin-Lurey-Stacy, Lawrence Grossberg (who did study at the CCCS, I note) and Douglas Kellner (who didn't as far as I know). AllyD (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the academics you list, where they don't have a direct connection to this institution, all come from the quite narrow subject area of cultural studies and as such are of doubtful value in establishing the notability of this institution beyond, as I mention initially, a very small niche band of academics due to their non-independence from the subject matter at hand. Surely, if this institution was truly notable it would have been recognised outside of this select group who seem to have formed circuitous references? For example, compare as a "blue-ribbon" standard, the well referenced notability of the Max Planck Institute. Jstriker (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another specific discussion, this time in the lead para of this article from Washington State Uni: [2]. AllyD (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Are we supposed to have articles about all defunct departments? Also, the article itself reads like an advertisement...--MagisterMilitum (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Sociology notified. AllyD (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep For now keep the article. I think that there is enough coverage to let the article remain for now to see if other information can be found in off line sources. At a later date, if nothing else shows up then perhaps a merge discussion can happen. But for now keep. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 23:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only notable thing about this institution seems to be the fact it was closed. --81.153.231.175 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Notability seems to stem from its closure. 188.221.202.217 (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whole issues of academic journals written about this place, yes this specific center.... probably upwards of 200 newspaper articles over its history... notable, yes... one of the founding locations of the field of cultural studies. in terms of sociology/culturalstudies/philosophy/history this place, with a proper article should be an A level article. I just needs improved. A bit of simple research by its nominator would have prevented this nomination. --Buridan (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm incredulous that Wikipedia would even consider deleting this page; CCCS was a pioneering research centre, the touchstone for a whole generation of cultural-studies scholars. There's much more to be said about the Centre than this page covers, but that's a reason to expand, not delete. Are the voices for deletion conversant with Cultural Studies, and I've just missed a development that rendered this Centre unimportant? --Akma (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been repeatedly pointed out the centre seems to be more notable for its closure than anything else. I am conversant with "Cultural Studies" and have pointed out above that circuitous references between a small group of niche academics, many of whom were linked to this institution in someway does not make such sources "independent of the subject". Rgds. Jstriker (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of references available, the page needs improved. As for your 'related', here I think you might be extending a bit far. In any case, this is notable beyond all requirements.--Buridan (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly claiming that the centre "seems to be more notable for its closure than anything else" doesn't make it true, Jstriker (or perhaps, makes it true only to you); the Centre was a catalyst for the genesis and flourishing of an entire academic movement. Are you suggesting that only institutions of the broad significance of the Max Planck Institute (a centre with a longer history and wider span of subject areas) merit Wikipedia pages? What's the benefit to Wikipedia in eliminating this page?--Akma (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going on the basis of the notability of the sources I could find it's true. I've never seen any sources in the mainstream press referencing this centre which weren't related to its closure for example. As I said it seems to only be notable among a niche group of academics. I think its importance has been blown out of all proportion here. How many University sub-Departments - not faculties, not Departments, but a level lower than even that, have their own wiki page? Especially defunct ones. I think the most pertinent colloquialism here is "superhero in their own lunchbox". The only sources provided to establish notability other than for closure are webpages which no longer exist. The only references brought up in this discussion have not been independent from the subject at hand, due to either direct links to the institution itself or the very niche subject itself. The genesis for this "movement" was The Frankfurt School in any event. Jstriker (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I echo the comments of Buridan and Akma - this was a very significant group in its day and there are numerous references to the centre in many frequently-read academic texts. Davidbrake (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I think that Jstriker's claim that publications by people in the relevant academic field shouldn't count towards notability is dreadful. This is like saying that publications by cardiologists shouldn't count for determining whether a heart disease or a heart transplant program is notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think equating "Cultural" Studies to medical science is dreadful. Jstriker (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Barnett[edit]

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

I do not know what to think of this biography of a living person. He is a television sportcaster with a bio on the ESPN website. I do not think he contributes to the art of sportcasting in any special way; he seems to just be a sportscaster. Blue Rasberry 03:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to his days at ESPN, he was the tv/radio announcer for a couple NBA/MLB teams. Also, he does have some articles where is the focal point [3], [4], [5]. He won two UPI Radio Commentator of the Year awards, which may only be limited to the NBA. Patken4 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the two UPI 'Radio Commentator of the Year' awards apparently showing his meeting WP:ANYBIO through "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. ". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass the notability criteria. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bei Maejor[edit]

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

Questionable notability – I haven't researched it a lot, and article makes some nice claims, but I'm finding few reliable sources on Google searches. Also, musicians are usually not notable when they first sign onto a record label. Jamie S93^❤ 22:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 20:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 20:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources that establish his notability as a producer. Silver seren^C 20:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He shows up at least fifteen times within wiki entries - independently created by others. His song "feel it" with sean kingston and tiesto was number 4 on the charts "Black Roses" sung Trey Songz on the album Ready was nominated for a grammy this year, His production "stay or go" by monica is a wiki entry and her album debuted at number 2 on billboard this week Hec24000 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep The article seems too promotional and the sources seem inadequate for a BLP. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is promotional, then it needs to be rewritten, that is not a reason for deletion.

"A Maejor Star is Born" - The Michigan Daily

"Beat Maejor" - The Michigan Daily

"Bei Major Inks Deal With Jive Records" - SingersRoom

How are these three not sufficient in and of themselves to confer notability? Silver seren^C 20:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources do look good. Well done. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

._. ...those were already in the article in the first place though. Silver seren^C 00:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were buried in the external links which seemed at first glance to be PR stuff. Mea culpa. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like plenty of notable coverage to me. Dream Focus 21:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Renaissance Festival[edit]

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

Seems to be mainly promotional. All of the references are also either promotional or don't provide any information. —ems 2 4 23:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added this reference, which seems to be detailed enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the article still sounds like something that would be on a tourist packet for the region, especially with things like admission fees. —ems 2 4 00:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Much of the referencing in the article are simply event announcements and do not support notability. However the link provided by Eastmain, and the Columbus Times reference are not. This book identifies it as one of the largest such festivals inthe US. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, keep. But that book should be cited in the article. —ems 2 4 02:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. already deleted Black Kite 20:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mat kilau[edit]

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

I strongly suspect that this article is a hoax. For one thing, the birth and death dates indicate that the subject reached 123 years of age. This cannot be possible, as there is a verified list of the oldest people and nobody has exceed 122. In addition, there are no references and the websites that come up in Google look suspicious. The majority of the article was copied verbatim from other sites anyway. Comments? —ems 2 4 23:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Article deleted by User:Neutrality at 05:32, April 5, 2010; discussion now closed for housekeeping — Glenfarclas (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neyaz Ahmad[edit]

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

Unless I'm missing something this page appears to be about a totally non-notable software engineer, and it's an autobiography to boot. It's just that my original speedy nomination of the article was removed by the originating editor, and a subsequent speedy nomination was removed three hours after the article was created with an accusation that the nomination was "overly aggressive" and interfering. The article is now eight hours old and I'm still not seeing what makes this guy notable? role^player 23:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, blatant autobiography without even a suggestion of notability. A very clear A7 speedy, whatever your opinion of the tagging. Hairhorn (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Hairhorn. Not even close. By the way, when someone removes a speedy deletion tag claiming they need more time to work on an article, I just userfy the article with a polite explanation that it can be moved back once it's ready for prime time. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:Autobiography ... Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) _{12:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hylas Yachts[edit]

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

Spam by a Fort Lauderdale dealer specializing in, guess what, Hylas Yachts! Orange Mike | Talk 23:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Article is spammy in tone, but that can be corrected via editing rather than deletion. Some sources are listed which are independent and reliable in nature, indicating that the subject has coverage as needed by WP:N. --Jayron32 22:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The company appears notable but this article needs to be cleaned up and de-spammed. Toddst1 (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A notable company, Toddst1's edits seem to have taken care of most of the spam and the editor has shown a willingness to work within the guidelines. Smartse (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is really cool. I was hoping for some collaboration. Especially thanks to Toddst1. I will make some notes on the discussion page. How about a criticism section to help neutralize the article out? RJ (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I ran across Cabo Rico Yachts while doing page patrol. This article, by the same man, is a similar case of a notable smaller manufacturer.

I note that there are currently 49 Hylas boats for sale on YachtWorld, and while that is not conclusive evidence of notability, it's certainly suggestive. There are other manufacturers bluelinked on List of sailboat designers and manufacturers with significantly smaller numbers.

It appears from User:R Jordan that he is a yacht broker, so yes, he has a financial interest in the industry, but not an obvious particular interest in this brand. The comment above

"Spam by a Fort Lauderdale dealer specializing in, guess what, Hylas Yachts!"

is unfair. He disclosed his interest in the industry on his user page -- certainly many users are not so forthright. A glance at his company's web site shows 3 Hylas boats out of 20 boats listed for sale -- more than I might expect, but there is no indication that he is a dealer or has any special relationship with Hylas.

As his User page comments, certainly Wikipedia would be better off with more and better articles on yachts. While we cannot be Consumer Reports, we should certainly provide background. This is a reasonable start on this brand.

I know, of course, that expert opinion is not allowed in articles, but I'm not sure of its standing in this kind of discussion. I've been sailing for forty years, including a circumnavigation, and have, thirty years ago, built and sold boats for a living. I have no connection whatsoever with Hylas or Mr. Jordan other than having seen the boats occasionally.

I have some concerns over the use of images in the article. Wikipedia is not an image repository. It might be better if the images were thumbnailed into the list of Models, something that I would be willing to do if the vote is for Keep. Also, if the vote is Keep, we should take a closer look at the fair use rationale for several of the photos. The images that Mr. Jordan has taken himself should be uploaded to Commons. Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had concerns over the images as well. It seems like promotional shots not taken by myself are not fair use. I would like to see the fair use images thumbnailed into the models but do not know the right wiki formatting. RJ (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Malad. Shimeru (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daruwala compound[edit]

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

This article appears to be about a location, but I can't understand exactly what it's talking about. I didn't want to mark it for speedy deletion, so I decided to list it here. Any comments? —ems 2 4 23:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Daruwala is a compound in Malad, which is a suburb of Mumbai. I dont think we need to know the geography to this level of detail. Szzuk (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - I think it is a residential area (bigger than a mere compound). Redirecting it to Malad would be better.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Appears suitable for redirection as I can't find anything to establish notability on its own. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Tim Song (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Feller Fart Smeller: And Other Spoonerisms[edit]

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

Advertisement, full of "pull quotes" but with no actual evidence of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 23:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence of notability? Have you actually read the article? As well as the three reviews already cited there's an academic review at doi:10.1353/bcc.2006.0432. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone ought to write an article about about Jon Agee, who is rather well-known as an author of children's books and who, surprisingly, doesn't have a "warticle on ikipedia". Nominator is right on the money in calling this an advertisement, and all it lacks is the link to Amazon.com. Unfortunately, you can't describe the 26 spoonerisms without giving away the contents of the book. Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what does any of that have to do with our deletion policy? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just about all of it. WP:N, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOT#OR, etc. Mandsford (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it fails WP:N and WP:NOT#OR despite being cited to three sources and having another identified above? And WP:SOAPBOX despite all of the content written in Wikipedia's voice being purely descriptive rather than promotional, with any opinions being clearly marked as such? You must be looking at a different article from the one that I can see. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Capsule notices in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, and Horn Book, which "review" a great many books, and all of which appeared (as usual) before the book was actually published, do not seem to me to satisfy the requirements of WP:BK—especially as I can find little evidence of substantive discussion of the book after its publication. I agree with Mandsford that an article about the author, mentioning his individual books, would in this case be preferable to an article about this particular book. Deor (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge to an article about the author. True, all three of these review sources are highly selective; and according to the GNG, any book reviewed in more than one of them is notable and could justify an article. But I agree that we need most an article about the author, and we probably should merge the individual books, which are not particularly significant. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but either merge and redirect, or wait for improvement. The article is horrible to be honest but that doesn't mean delete --Tmckeage (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the reviews are trivial, and there is no encyclopedic content in the article. What influence has this work had? None. Are connections to other topics possible? No. Abductive (reasoning) 02:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ainsley Earhardt[edit]

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

Delete, a newscaster relatively new to the field, with no significant awards, no national coverage, no significant coverage in secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To nominator: Your delete vote is inherent in your nomination, unless specifically stated otherwise by you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for weak notability. Article needs additional cleanup and sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. There are three sources cited by the article: 1 certainly does not appear reliable; 2, well, no, classmates.com is not a reliable source; and 3 is obviously not independent. It is of course difficult to conduct a good search for a reporter because it will throw up lots of stuff by the reporter. But still, I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources out there, just the very occasional piece in local press. It is important to uphold the standard of significant coverage in reliable sources, otherwise we have unverified material. All the more so for a BLP. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Move to neutral. Most of the articles on the talk page seem to be hidden behind a paywall so I'm not sure whether they'll get the subject across WP:GNG. But by the same token, I'm not confident enough to say the article should be deleted as there obviously is reliable material out there. The open question is whether it's signficant coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Struck my "weak" above and upped my support per a bit of research and the possibilitoes shared now at Talk:Ainsley Earhardt. Yes... the article is in need of work. And the unsuitable cites currently in the article can be replaced through regular editing with the numerous non-FOX sources available to WP:V and properly source this article, and to encourage futher searches, I believe it can be improved to better serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers - I'll revisit my delete; it'll just take some time. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bake (band)[edit]

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

I'm not able to find anything about the band itself. The lead singer had a mention in relation to an earlier band, the Semibeings (an article I'm not nominating, although it's recently been proded). The references on this page are both about the Semibeings, not to this band. And the NY Times reference is a very brief mention in relation to a record label they [the Semibeings] were on.

Google news, blogs, books searches reveal nothing (used: bake "joe baker" "pat baker" band, and similar permutations to search, with and without quotes) that I was able to find, and google web search's closest hit is for a Pat Baker myspace page (not sure if it's the same). Shadowjams (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, NN, all I get on a G News search is related to the act of baking. CTJF83 chat 05:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. This is a new band so there won't be much about them specifically right now. I found new sites for them: http://www.reverbnation.com/#/bake and http://www.myspace.com/bakerock. If members of one band of note (The Semibeings) start another band, it is worthy of mention in Wikipedia. Also, search by what you are not finding. You will not find any other mention of an american rock band using a chinese instrument called the Guzheng. That alone makes them unique and worthy of an article. Based on the other things Wikipedia allows entries for, this band deserves an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.19.185 (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which criteria at WP:BAND does it meet? Myspace is in no way a reliable source. CTJF83 chat 17:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which criteria? Let's see:

1.Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.

Yes, these are former members of the Semibeings who were the subject of MANY published works like the one documented from the New York Times. The fact is, the New York Times and these other publishers covered these individuals, so it does not matter whether they are now in a new band who has not had much coverage yet. They are also listed in a book: Alternative Rock : Third Ear - The Essential Listening Companion by Dave Thompson. Their albums were released on the lengendary indie labels Shimmy Disc and C/Z.

2.Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

They have charted on Reverb Nation's site.

5.Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

Their prior band did which makes their current band worthy of mention. Their albums were released on the lengendary indie labels Shimmy Disc and C/Z.

6.Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

Yes, both independantly and together The Semibeings, Mouthpiece, Junkygood. These are groups with a prominent cult status.

7.Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

The Baker brothers are prominent in the history of music in the Hamilton/Mercerville area of central NJ. They are also the only rock band in the western world that uses a Guzheng. So, they address both of these criteria pretty well. Here is a local area newsclip about them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=petOf_hQijc

10.Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

The Baker brothers previous band The Semibeing's music was featured on a number of season's of MTV's the Real World and Road Rules during the 1990's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.19.61 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links? And just because the Semibeings might be notable for an article, doesn't mean Baker automatically is, even if they have the same members. CTJF83 chat 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.18.75 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are NY times and allmusic links on the page itself and I just provided a youtube link I found. Ctjf83,Your statement seems to contradict # 6 for band criteria. It's pretty clear these guys fit the criteria for a band. Maybe not as strongly as you would argue, but still enough. It's not like these are just some random guys who started an unknown band. They have done enough to warrant this page according to the wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.19.61 (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Ctjf83 is correct, I think, in asking for links to establish notability. For better or worse, youtube links don't qualify. And as intriging as the use of a Guzheng may be (speaking as someone who made a pickup by hand for a dulcimer made from a kit, and who then played said instrument through a 800 watt sun amp), I don't think that establishes notability. BUT, that being said, if the members or the band have been the subject of many articles, as claimed, it should easy to establish notibility. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at IPs addresing wp:music. #1 coverage of another band does not make Bake notable. #2 not a national chart. #5 another band releasing albums does not make Bake notable. #6 while Pat (and him only from the evidence provided) may be considered by some to be notable that does not make everything he does notable. #7 no evidence of claim (verifiability) and the Hamilton/Mercerville area appears not to be a city. no evidence they are the only rock band in the western world that uses a Guzheng and that would not make them notable. #10 another band having their music used does not make Bake notable. no notability shown, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Duff Beer, you really don't address # 6. Pat was in The Semibeings and Mouthpiece, both independantly notable ensembles in that they have both had records released on legitimate and quite credible labels. The other stuff you make a good point, but it's subjective and can be argued as I already have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.19.226 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (duplicate "vote") Please stick to one "vote" per AfD, as you have said don't delete up higher too. CTJF83 chat 18:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually let's read #6 "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Noone from The Semibeings has their own page, so therefore Bake doesn't contain 2 or more independently notable musicians. And the 2nd part doesn't apply to bands, but to their members. CTJF83 chat 18:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verifiable and reliable references which establish notability are put into the article. Right now there are none establishing Bake. What reference are there establish the notability of people who may or may not be in Bake, but as far as I can see, Bake is not mentioned at all in those references. Also, only the last two paragraphs of the article are about bake. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can anyone give a good arguement how they don't at the least fit # 6? These are two guys that were in a few band's of note. The original band's fit the criteria for a band due to having worldwide releases on record labels among other things. These guys now formed a new band satifying 6. (Another band is not simply "anything" as Duff beer mentioned). The NY times and allmusic articles verify that Joe and Pat were members of the Semibeings. Bake's websites list the same two people.

Look, I understand that Wikipedia can't just allow anyone to put just anything up...but this is a bit different. As far as I can see they satisfy the criteria decently. Aren't there a TON of entries on wikipedia that you can focus on that will better suit everyone's time? As far as I can tell, you guys are just subjectively nitpicking this page. Why not focus on pages that really need to be fixed? This page is accurate and according to the criteria aruably makes the cut. No one has convinced me otherwise. Why not go find some real BS entries to delete? These guys deserve the page and it's really not making any credibility difference to wikipedia so why not leave it be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.19.226 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I hate pointing out essays and are generally very opposed to them in general...WP:OTHERSTUFF and the following section. CTJF83 chat 18:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, address my point about # 6 rather than focusing on a separate part of my comment that you can find evidence for your side about. I was simply trying to appeal to the group as to why it's so very important to feel it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.19.226 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't see any of the musicians of Semibeings or Bake being notable outside the band, so they wouldn't meet the criteria for 6. CTJF83 chat 19:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia (online game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable game with no references from reliable, third-party, published sources. Nothing I can find meets the WikiProject Video games list of recommended sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I edited the article and removed all trivia information. I added one half-notable reviewer score and another half-notable game's description ref. I suppose without all the junk it had, the article may warrant its existence. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 13:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, the only references are by:

a non-notable reviewer on a non-notable site that allows anybody to write reviews, and the article is especially bad in this case, with quite a few spelling/grammatical/punctuation errors (Shvoong)

a non-notable reviewer on a case-by-case site (see here), the review is okay but certainly not game journalism as demonstrated by a few spelling/grammatical mistakes (OMGN)

I don't see how that meets WP:N or WP:V at all. What we need are quality sources like those suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Well—to be honest—I couldn't care less about this browser game. Just seemed appropriate to give it a chance. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I honestly wasn't trying to sound like a dick there but I think it came across that way. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you did not. Both those are wank sources and I know it. I was just trying to act as an attorney for an article that—once deleted—will never be seen again. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 18:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that this game has had insufficient coverage in reliable publications. Marasmusine (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Seanmercy is convincing. Shimeru (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hepcats[edit]

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

Non-notable artistic work (self-published comic series) which fails to meet WP:GNG, and if we extrapolate WP:NB it also fails those criteria. I searched for sources using the standard Google books/scholar/news search as well as a full academic/library database search (ProQuest, InfoTrac, EBSCOhost, JSTOR, and others), and wasn't able to find any reliable sources to establish notability for this work. If the artist is notable, that's great, but that doesn't confer notability on his works separately. --Darkwind (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I remember this one! I'm old, LOL. But I'm not sure it's notable.... Bearian (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the series and author had multiple mentions and fifteen page interview with him in the Comics Journal, a bunch of mentions in Wizard magazine... for the time that's about as notable as you can get without actually selling a ton of copies... it's worth remembering that self-published meant something different in the comics Direct Market than it does in the book world...Seanmercy (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Clowers[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denny L. Peck[edit]

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

I'm unsure as to if this person meets the notability requirements for biographies set out at WP:N. It seems that her only claim to fame, as it were, is being a talk show host. As such, I am putting this article forward for a deletion discussion. I myself am unable to formulate an opinion on whether the article meets the guidelines for inclusion - I know too little about the subject in question. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are no references, its self promotional, and I can't find any reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gil-Sung Park[edit]

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

WP:Academic Albrechtbrown (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain' academic position as full professor at a major university, sourced by his web site, a RS for the purpose. GS results, are low but perhaps respectable for someone who publishes on Korean topics. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if all those 'citation needed' tags get replaced by references, to me he just looks like someone doing his job without anythhing particularly special. Without the needed references, possibly a candidate for speedy. Peridon (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Weak, due to lack of English-language sources, and peculiarly low citation counts on Gscholar. However, His CV (Google Translated link) lists him as editor-in-chief of a journal translated as "sociology of Korea", and as editors on several other journals. Given that some of his publications listed on his webpage aren't even on Gscholar, I incline towards keeping. Ray^Talk 15:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 15:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Full professor at leading University with many publications and editorship of a new peer reviewed journal with loads of "big names" associated with it - Global Policy this is now cited. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Peridon (below) is quite right, I should have described Global Policy as: new peer reviewed journal with loads of "big names" associated with it (instead of noted) - this is now cited. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment -

Full Professor in Korea's No 2 Uni. Korea University
Director of Institute of Social Research at Korea University
Former Chief Editor of National Professional Body's main journal in his field Korean Journal of Sociology - This journal is well established (since 1964) and abstracted and indexed by CSA Illumina's Sociological Abstracts as a "core" journal.[6] "The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area."
Editorial Board of new journal from LSE Global Policy- which has on its Boards Mary Kaldor, Nicholas Stern, Robert Keohane, Dani Rodrik, Jeffrey Sachs, Joseph Stiglitz, Pascal Lamy, Javier Solana, Kemal Dervis, Will Hutton, Romano Prodi, George Soros, Muhammad Yunus
Editorial Board of International Journal of Comparative Sociology and was Guest Editor for a special edition of it
Long list of publications/articles (but most not covered by English language based citation indices)
Textbook: Park, Gil-Sung (2007). Economic Sociology. Hawaii University Press (Korea). ISBN 9788930082068

Comment Does a journal get notability when it's on Vol 1 No 1? This is the current issue of Global Policy shown on its website. And "4th GPPN Conference & Global Policy journal launch London, 22 March 2010" - quoted from http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/GPPN/ I can't access the 'About' or 'Editorial Statement' sections as they require something not installed on this computer - and I am not getting the plug-in to read them when I don't know what that plug-in is. Peridon (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any facts that help to pass WP:PROF. Being a full professor doesn't pass, "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." Being on the editorial board of a brand new journal doesn't pass, "The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area." The only potential qualification I see is the editor in chief position of "Sociology in Korea" - but I can't find any evidence that that journal is a "major well-established journal." In terms of citations to help pass "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I checked ISI Highly Cited [7] and he is not listed, and according to DGG's check of Google Scholar not enough cites there either. So overall it appears he just isn't notable enough yet for a listing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISI highly cited list is a much higher standard than we normally use here. The intention of the list is to designate those people as famus or almost-famous, and notability in all fields is less than famous. I agree, though that anyone on that list qualifies for an article

Comment - The Korean Journal of Sociology's categorization as a "core" journal by CSA does not establish notability. The criteria listed at the cited website state that, "Core journals are published by sociological associations, groups, faculties, and institutions, and/or have the term "sociology" in their titles." So the list includes ANY journal that puts the word "Sociology" into the title. That is not notable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked to comment again. The question basically is whether we should use national or international standards for WP:PROF. I think the usual approach is that notability as a researcher is international & must be judged on a world-wide basis. Myself, I think we should modify just a little in many cases for researchers from the less scientifically developed countries. The progress of science is significant , but the growth of science in a country is significant also. In terms of importance as an academic administrator and such, or as a teacher, then the standards are national, because the overall academic profession is organized nationally with national standards. The key point here would be in what way to regard the journal. Korean Journal of Sociology is a relatively minor journal on an international scale. It is not in Journal citation Reports list of 100 sociology journals. It is notable enough for WP, as the major journal in a field in a country might be. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amplitood[edit]

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

I refused a CSD on this because it claimed some notability, and PRODded it instead - the PROD was removed without comment, and I can find little on this company that isn't derived from its own press releases. Black Kite 19:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find sources independent of the subject. Any article on this subject is therefore going to be unreliable, and likely promotional. Fails WP:ORG --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claims of notability appear to be unfounded. See [8], [9]. — Rankiri (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The non-Amplitood external link doesn't appear to mention Amplitood, and I'm not sure how they could be bought out by a consortium of GoMobile (OK) and a "communication service component of the GSM mobile communication system" (peculiar...). Otherwise, per the two posts above. Peridon (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913[edit]

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

The ultra-POV title notwithstanding, this is precisely the kind of "grab victimhood before it goes!" battleground article we do not need on this encyclopedia. In addition, it does not use any non-Bulgarian language sources with the exception of the Carnegie Report, a primary source from 1913. The article appears to be named after some Bulgarian book from 1913, which in addition to being a really weird way to name an article, is some nothing more than an non-WP:NOTABLE nationalist POV piece. Athenean (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several Bulgarian sources in the article. The policy on reliable sources doesn't prohibit the usage of non-English sources, so this isn't relevant. Primary sources are also not prohibited if they're not used for interpretation which is not the case here. The events described in the article are referred also in numerous English language secondary sources, for example "Death and exile: the ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922", p.155; "Documents on British foreign policy, 1919-1939, Volume 11", p.308; "Refugees in the age of total war", p.17.

There are certainly problems with the article - the number of Bulgarian refugees is disputed and the article focuses too much on a book which might not be notable. The article should be reworked and renamed so that it's less about Miletich and his book and more about the events described in the article and the article must conform more to NPOV. However, these are not problems that should be settled with an deletion. The only real arguments for deletion - lack of notability - seem to be groundless. Kostja (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The weird article name should be no issue. The events described in the article are perfectly notable, and I haven't heard of the recent Wikipedia-wide ban of Bulgarian sources that you seem to be referring to. Yes, the article has issues, but they are not insoluble. It needs work, not a deletion. Todor →Bozhinov 20:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —Kostja (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians" returns zero hits on any literature search. The current article is irredeemably POV. At this point, deletion and re-writing of the article from scratch under a completely different title (hopefully not Bulgarian Genocide) seems the best option. If the article is simply kept, it is likely just going to fester in its present state indefenitely. Athenean (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the name should be changed. I don't see anything irredeemable on this point. Kostja (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify and rework: While it seems clear that the topic is notable as such, it is equally obvious that the article as is appears now lacks too much in terms of reliable sources and neutral point of view to be kept. In this context, it is unfortunate that the main source is in Bulgarian, and thus hardly accessible to the average reader here. This may be fine with some uncontroversial topic, but not in this case, I am afraid. If the event really had these dimensions, it does not seem to be asking too much for an English scholarly account. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is heavy POV, numbers are highly exaggerated and frankly false. Even most ethnographic maps of the area done during that time for different propaganda purposes fail to show such significant Bulgarian presence in Thrace as the article claims. According to 3rd party sources in 1913 a total of 200 000 refugees came to Bulgaria from Greece, Turkey, Macedonia and Romania (The unwanted: European refugees from the First World War through the Cold War p.106). The total of all refugees to Bulgaria was 200 000, the article claims that just in Eastern Thrace 200 000 were killed or forced to leave. Clearly inflated figures with an intentional bias. If you look at other population exchange figures for 1913: 46,786 Bulgarians left Eastern Thrace for Bulgaria and 48,578 Moslems emigrated from Western Thrace to Turkey (Refugees in the age of total war pp.17). Extarnal sources indicate that in in 1913 more Muslims and Turks left Bulgaria to Turkey than Bulgarians left Thrace for Bulgaria. Between 1878 and 1989 some 1.5 - 2 milloin ethic Turks have left or have been forced to leave Bulgaria under harsh circumstances, reality sepaks of much greater destructions of Turks in Bulgaria. Hittit (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis is not the place for discussions on the subject. You need to actually demonstrate that the article is not on a notable subject, POV problems are not a criteria for deletion. Kostja (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you yourself are pushing a biased point of view. The number of refugees has been estimated to be 166.650 ("Conditions of peace with Bulgaria: observations of the Bulgarian delegation", p.55) and a neutral source states that the Bulgarians in the Adrianople villaet (the majority of this area was part of Eastern Thrace) were 370.000, more than in the book by Miletich ("Defeat in Detail: The Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912-1913", p.41). This obviously shows that the events described in the article did occur, though the exact numbers are disputed. This requires the reworking of the article to comply with NPOV, not deletion because of "I don't like it" type arguments. Kostja (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what have the Turks of Bulgaria to do with this article? This is an article for deletion discussion, not a place to air grievances. Kostja (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Simple answers, the given numbers of Bulgarians in Eastern Thrace during 1913 are false; these are unsupported by non-Bulgarian third party sources. During the Balkan Wars Bulgaria was the aggressor against Turkey thus causing in turn the extermination of local Muslim population from Macedonia and Western Thrace and massive refugee flows towards Turkey. After the second Balkan War via population exchange agreements between Turkey and Bulgaria refugee flows moved in both directions. Second point the Vilayet of Edirne during 1912 was much lager area (before Bulgarian occupation of the area), so it is false to suggest that all those Bulgarians lived in Eastern Thrace…furthermore Bulgaria was the occupator in Thrace gaining vast territories. It is totally ludicrous to claim extermination of Bulgarian in Thrace by Turkey while Bulgaria attacked and occupied large portions of Thrace. You can’t be the aggressor, occupator of large territories and then again the victim at the same time. 3rd party source do not support the POV of the article therefore it should be deleted. Hittit (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You are attacking positions no one has taken. Of course the massacre didn't take place while Bulgaria was occupying those territories but after the Turks reoccupied those areas. So the two events didn't happen at the same time. Also, no one is trying to prove any POV, the events described here are backed up by reliable sources (including the one you keep referring to), the POV problems can be fixed and are not grounds for deletion. About the ethnic composition of the area, I clearly said that the major part of Edirne Vilayer was Eastern Thrace. You also are defending a POV when you state that most maps of the period do not support a significant population in the area. In fact, one such map is in the article and here's [10] another. So obviously both the numbers of Bulgarians before the war and the numbers expelled are disputed, but the central fact of the existence of a Bulgarian population which was expelled during the Second Balkan War has been confirmed by multiple reliable sources, something that neither you nor Athenean have been able to contradict. Also, I don't see why you keep diverting the subject to the Muslims of Bulgaria (which, as you very well know, are still a significant population and a majority in many of the areas captured by Bulgarian in 1912), this discussion is not about them. Kostja (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kostja as an example of your knowledge of the history of the area, your statement: "About the ethnic composition of the area, I clearly said that the major part of Edirne Vilayer was Eastern Thrace"...would you like to correct your self? Do you even know where Edirne is not to mention the boundaries of the Vilayet in 1912? Amasing discussions we are having, goes to show the level of basic credibility of the article for deletion. Hittit (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From this map and the contemporary division of Eastern Thrace it seems that Edirne Vilayet was composed of the contemporary Turkish provinces of Tekirdag, Kirklareli and Edirne, the European part of Çanakkale, the Western Thrace region of Greece and those territories Bulgaria kept after the treaty of Neuilly (excepting Pirin Macedonia). The Turkish Eastern Thrace has an area sligly bigger than 20 thousand km², Western Thrace is about 8500 km², and the territory taken by Bulgaria (without the Macedonian part) about 10.5 thousand km² (in addition, the Ottoman Empire also controlled part of Western Thrace after the war, which was also affected by expulsions). So it seems that the majority of the former Edirne Vilayet consists of Eastern Thrace. If we look at population, Eastern Thrace was always more densely settled than the other parts of the region due to the mountainous terrain in Western Thrace and the Bulgarian areas. As an analogy, today Eastern Thrace (excluding Istanbul) has about 1.5 million population, Western Thrace about 360 thousand and the Bulgarian areas are also probably around this mark (I can explain in more detail how I arrived at the figures, but this is not the point here). So I would say that I'm informed about the topic, but this is irrelevant to the subject. Instead of trying to prove my ignorance, I suggest you answer which of the criteria listed here apply to this article? Kostja (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Neuilly??? As an analogy, today Eastern Thrace??? Concentrate only on the events of 1913 and movement of boundaries at that time. To help you here is a map of the Bulgarian occupation during the first Balkan War and then again what Bulgaria retained after the Second Balkan War. Focus on the area of Thrace and how the Vilayet of Edirne looked after the First and Second Balkan Wars. Get your years and treaties right.¨http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balkan_Wars_Boundaries.jpg Hittit (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that you haven't even attempted to understand what I wrote. If we use only contemporary territories, then after the Second Balkan War the Ottoman Empire controlled about 20 thousand km², and Bulgaria controled 19 thousand km² (10.5 + 8.5). But about 2000 km² were part of the Ottoman Empire until 1915, so it's really about 22 and 17 thousand km² respectively. About population, the Bulgarian conquests had a population of about 670000, but this also included Pirin Macedonia, while the Ottoman territories had a population of over 1 million. So I don't see how my original statement is wrong.

Of course, as interesting this discussion is, it's rather off-topic. It would be far more productive if you answered the question I posed to you in my last comment. Kostja (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International 3rd party sources on the refugees of the that time are clear, after the 2nd Balkan War just over 200 000 refugees arrived to Bulgaria from ALL directions, Macedonia, Turkey and Romania in addition to agreed population exchanges with Turkey and also with Greece. Thrace was inhabited by a multitude of ethnic groups mainly Greeks, Turks, Pomaks and in certain villages Bulgarians. During the First Balkan War Bulgaria (the agressor)occupied most of Thrace and after the second War almoust half of the territory fell under Bulgarian control. It was in fact the Muslims population that of Turkish Rumelia (Macedonia, Epirus and Thrace )who were subjected to Destructions after all only Eastern Thrace remained of their territories in Europe. Ref. Population exchange in Greek Macedonia: the rural settlement of refugees, Elisabeth Kontogiorgi: pp.38-39 gives a good picture of the situation once Macedonia, Epirus and Thrace fell under the Balkan Christian armies. You cannot have a POV article called “The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913”, in light of historical facts you need to have an article called the Destruction of the Population of Ottoman Rumelia to reflect the plight of all ethnic groups who were either killed or expelled from their home under the feet of advancing armies. The international spread of ethnic conflict: fear, diffusion, and escalation By David A. Lake, Donald S. Rothchild p.166, Refugees in the age of total war pp.17, Population exchange in Greek Macedonia: the rural settlement of refugees, Elisabeth Kontogiorgi p.39 and bunch of others clearly indicate that only some 47 000 Bulgarians left Thrace in exchange of 48 000 Muslims from Bulgarian occupied territories. Most sources show that it was in fact Muslims and Greeks who more mostly subjected to expulsions in Thrace. Hittit (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments are not relevant to the discussion but the glaring mistakes in them should still be corrected. Hittit is ignoring neutral sources which state that there were 220,000 Bulgarian refugees. He also falsely claims that the Bulgarians left Eastern Thrace as a result of a population exchange. The source that claims this (it has been reproduced in several books, but it's the same source), is contradicted by almost all other sources, which state that the Bulgarians left before any treaty was signed. If such an agreement existed, it affected only limited areas: [11]. Hittit also claims that Bulgarians only lived in "certain villages" which apart from being POV, is disproved by numerous ethnic maps of the region which mark a compact area of Bulgarian settlement.

I agree that Muslims fled Bulgarian occupied territories but to describe this as destruction would be incorrect, as Muslims are a significant proportion of these territories to this day, while the Bulgarians from Eastern Thrace are completely gone. I agree that the articles on the Balkan wars need to contain more information about ethnic cleansing but this isn't a reason to delete this article which as I've pointed out is well supported by reliable sources.

Of course, as I said, the above discussion is not really the point of this deletion proposal. The one closing this discussion should note that none of those who pushed for deletion of this article have given any valid reason for deletion and their arguments are of the "I don't like it" type. Kostja (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kostja there are no mistakes, over 200000 Bulgarian refugees arrived in Bulgaria from 3 different neighbouring countries. You simply have no credible sources to indicated otherwise. Consult the link to see that Bulgarian population in Western Thrace in 1910 is put only at 30 000, there you can also get a picture of the refugee flows during the time in question: http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS056.pdf Also consult the article “The League of Nations and the Refugee Problem” by LW Holborn, where the direct quote is as follows: “Bulgaria had received about 220000 Bulgarians from adjacent countries since 1913”. I see no point for you to distort information, which is easily verifiable. Admit the article is POV and should either reflect historical facts or the article needs to go! Hittit (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Western Thrace? We are discussing Eastern Thrace, try to stick to the subject. There are many different figures on the Bulgarian refugees so it's more a question of balance and POV. As I said above, according to one source, there were 220,000 Bulgarian refugees (and I couldn't find your League of Nations article), so this is obviously disputed. What doesn't seem to be disputed is the fact that those people were made to leave - see, for example your PDF source. Under this conditions, the article should be edited to establish NPOV, not be deleted which is specifically stated as a reason not to delete an article. Kostja (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disputed, the article is there so is the source. If you want to establish NPVO start with the name of the article. All sources indicate refugee waves in all directions so perhaps you can focus on Balkan War refugees or something of that kind. If there were Bulgarian refugees there were much more Greek and Turkish so you cannot have the destruction of one but not the other. Not to mention there are no established numbers of Bulgarian presence in Eastern Thrace to start with. Western Thrace is relevent since if there were 30 000 there they could not have been much more in Eastern Thrace either. A Greek account of the population distribution of the Edirne Vilayet: "There were isolated clusters of Bulgarian villages in the remaining geographical regions of the vilayet of Adrianople. However, at the beginning of the twentieth century, of the total 1,030,000 inhabitants there, some 510,000 were Turks, 365,000 Greeks, 110,000 Bulgars and 45,000 Jews and Armenians." http://alex.eled.duth.gr/Istoria/thrace_english/Thracee7_7.htm the figures would sound logic, 30 000 Bulgars in Western Thrace and the rest scattered in Eastern Thrace, which would be inline with the population exchange figures and the fact that with these small numbers Bulgarian presence in Thrace disappared.Hittit (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Hittit, this is not for aimless ramblings. You're using Greek sources and baseless conjectures to convince me of your arguments? According to a neutral source which I've cited above there were 370,000 Bulgarians in the Vilayet of Adrianople. Also, there is ample evidence that there was nothing like a population exchange, though the expulsions might have been later legitimized by one mentioned in the treaty. And I still haven't seen any relevant reason for deletion. Kostja (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources have you cited? I have not seen a single one to support your claim. The figures total 1,030,000 inhabitants there, some 510,000 were Turks, 365,000 Greeks, 110,000 Bulgars and 45,000 Jews and Armenians were used by Venizelos to justifiy acquisition of Thrace after WWI, however in his book Peaceless Europe, Francesco S. Nitti says that in truth Turkish numbers were even much more superior, indicating Greece bias but in fact even greater Turkish numbers. Hittit (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are going in circles here: must I give every source twice? The 370,000 figure is from the book "Defeat in Detail: The Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912-1913", p.41. And I've already given this source. Kostja (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm the sources behind these remarkabe figures: Aram Andoyan and Zavren Biberyan? the original book was in Armenian "Badgerazart Intartzag Badmutyun Balkanyan Baderazmin" are you kidding me? Hittit (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original book, according to the author is Balkan Harbi Tarihi (Istanbul: Sander Yayinlari, 1975), 86–87. "Defeat in detail", I might add, is one of the chief sources on the Balkan Wars articles, so it's obviously considered a reliable source. Kostja (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Harbi Tarihi was the Turkish translation, it does say that in your source as well. Original language was Armenian, writer is Aram Andonyan. Here you can buy the book. http://www.simurg.com.tr/Details.aspx?code=52145&name=Balkan Harbi Tarihi Hittit (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, these statistics are used by a source considered reliable here. I should also add that your sources are also not neutral, so there's no reason to use one and ignore the other. By the way, from what I see he wrote this book in Istanbul, while serving in the department of Political censorship. Whatever his later activities, it seems that he wasn't considered a very anti-Turkish author at the time he wrote the book. Kostja (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aram Andonian is one of the main anti-Turkish sources out there...famous for the forgery of the so called "Andonian Telegrams" or "Talat Pasha Telegrams" triying to make a case of Armenian Genocide...not shure this guy or his documents or his figures are very neutral in any sence. Hittit (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But before that he worked for a department of the Ottoman government and published books in Istanbul. I think that declaring that everything he wrote as anti-Turkish is problematic. Kostja (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the Point of View problem is real it doesn't take away from the articles potential.--Tmckeage (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List_of_The_Cleveland_Show_characters#Neighbors. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim the Bear[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for notability since last year. This The Cleveland Show character fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to the small blurb in List of The Cleveland Show characters. — Scientizzle 19:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per above, NN for his own page. CTJF83 chat 05:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Agree with previous comments. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bar Radio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An "internet radio" show (somebody hasn't checked the definition of radio) previously deleted, recreated, deleted G4, AfD'd and deleted again, undeleted for the user to add citations, AfDd no consensus, and has been languishing with a notability tag since 2008. Creator was Redbarradio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I wonder if there could possibly be a COI here? Tagged as A7 but given the history I thought it was probably better to bring it here. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable pod cast. Has a dozen or so mentions on non-notable blogs (many in "comments" sections) but is altogether invisible in reliable print or web media. I also saw the various mentions made in Wired and Talkers magazine - and IMO they're not "significant coverage" enough to warrant its own article. (My rule of thumb: the more desperate a COI account is to get their blog, podcast, etc. covered by Wikipedia, the more non-notable it is. YMMV.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this show is the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable third-party sources referenced in the article, including Time Out Chicago, the Columbia Chronicle, and Newcity Chicago. The article needs some cleanup and the refs are bare urls but it crosses the notability threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a local show with citations in the local press. I see nothing making this encyclopedic on the international level.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax - date is too early, nothing checks out. JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Theophyre[edit]

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

Non-notable battle with absolutely no Google results. No sources cited, prod removed by author without reason. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I'm calling this a hoax. None of the proper names turn up any google hits except from this article. Unless someone can point to a reliable source covering this, I'm pretty sure this is completely made up. -R. fiend (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Veni Speedi Deleti as a hoax. Unsourced, which is no surprise. A search for "Theophyre", "Lucius Creminus" and "Flavius Creminus" turns up nothing. This is said to have taken place in 193 BC, but 125 BC appears to have been the earliest Roman invasion of Gaul. I think this should have been created yesterday instead of on April 2. Mandsford (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. Szzuk (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Speedy tagged as a hoax. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was userfy to User:Scchan/Baggataway (manga). Tim Song (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baggataway (manga)[edit]

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

Non-notable manga Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I am not sure -- Notability rules -- here in Wikipedia. There is indeed a Japanese page for the same title, and my knowledge to this title originally are through the Japanese Wikipedia pages, and then I go out to find out more information about the tile and reading it myself.

I am new around here (at least actually in terms of editing articles). I do welcome any recommendations and advice in making pages better and informative.

Scchan (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try work on more information for the title. My information comes from directly reading the original and web search (simply I have no other alternative except the original source on my bookshelf). It will be a lie to say the specific title is top hand popular titles, but it is supported by a major manga publishing company, and is released in language outside of its original language (just not English). The question is patronage by a major publisher justifies notability, and I think that is debatable depending who you ask. For sure, there exists lesser known titles in Wikipedia.

Another important point is the title being Lacrosse outreach. In the original text of the work, it is literally said within the work that one of the objective of the work itself is the popularization of Lacrosse in Japan.

While I understand it is limits of Goggle-search stuff, may I suggest a Japanese search of the title? May be this: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%E3%83%90%E3%82%AC%E3%82%BF%E3%82%A6%E3%82%A7%E3%82%A4&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=2fbbce52d84f2fa0 will help? Scchan (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I fail to mention I was the primary author. Please excuse me. (I added some more information the the AfD page.

Scchan (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy - I've done a little searching and haven't been able to find any coverage on this work. Unless we can turn up coverage by reliable sources (for example: reviews) it doesn't meet the general inclusion guidelines. Alternatively, if there's some chance that it will be published in English, you can keep the article in your userspace and wait for more sources to become available. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that it will be licensed in English. Sports anime/manga has never done very well. Even the really big titles, such as Slam Dunk and Eyeshield 21 have struggled. —Farix (t | c) 11:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of coverage by reliable third-party source, therefore failing WP:NOTE and WP:BK. The two blog reviews are not reliable. —Farix (t | c) 11:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Published in two different languages, multiple collected volumes published and sold, and is an ongoing series within a notable magazine. Dream Focus 12:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being translated into different languages doesn't making a work of fiction notable. In fact, it was rejected as a criteria for WP:BK. Nor does being serialized in a magazine. The notability of the magazine is not inherited by the manga published within it and vise versa. —Farix (t | c) 12:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a fair handed argument from the original author - I do have to agree sports title does not do well in English, so it is unlikely to see it released commercially in English. I do generally look at sports title in a somewhat different perspective - I grew up in Asia, where sports title does far more successful.

I think the question really down to if a title that does appear to do alright in Japan. I try not to cite blog and other Internet reviews excessively, there are customer reviews on Amazon Japan site too much; but I could have cited more if I really wished such blog/customer review more if I really wanted to. It is not a big title, underrated - possibly, and I like it. I think it will be a lie to say page original creators is not fan of the specific involved topic. The page does have a Japanese equivalent, so I originally created partially motivated that it is good enough in Japanese, why not English? I think it is up to debate if notability should be considered just in terms of English community when published in English.

I try to avoid to vote, and this is not supposed to be a vote to begin with anyway according to Wikipedia own guidelines. I do know ahead the involved page is somewhat fringe to begin with at least in terms of English community, but I have seen even more fringe stuff surviving. For sure, I am make an appeal here for myself. I do want to hear what others say, please leave me a message in my personal page - that is what I really want to hear.

Scchan (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial success has little influence on the notability of a subject. While a commercially success may indicate the potential for reliable third-party sources, it's not a very accurate indicator and more often doesn't mean anything.

Also, the existence of an article on another language Wikipedia does not give an "out" for this article. Each language Wikipedia sets it's own standards for inclusion. For the English Wikipedia, inclusion is based on receiving substantial coverage by reliable third-party sources along with a few other subject-area specific factors. For books, this includes winning a major literary award or making a significant contribution to a notable film or other art form.

Pointing to other articles isn't going to persuade anyone as to why this article should stay dispute of the inclusion guidelines. If we are going to ignore the guidelines, than we need to have a very good reason as to why this case is unique and should be made an exception.

User submitted reviews, such as those on Amazon, and blog reviews, unless they by an expert on the subject, are almost never considered reliable. Also, the language of the reviews is irrelevant. We have several articles on manga series that are well covered by in French or German sources and perfectly satisfy the inclusion guidelines. —Farix (t | c) 17:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Persuaded by Dream Focus comments. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ changed to Userfy on article creator. Fail inclusion guideline for books (WP:BK) with no prejudice for re-creation. This series is one out 42 serialized in Mag Garden's Comic Blade so the notability inheritance is fallacious. I dare you to name the 42 manga currently serialized in Comic Blade. Furthermore if we check Mag Garden webstore, series that received special treatment are Aria, Erementar Gelad, Tactics, Vassalords & Neko Ramen. Baggataway has yet to make it into that short list or even to make it into the Japanese weekly comics charts that speaks much of this series supposed "popularity". A not mentioned point is this series has yet to make into Western manga fandom with just 931 hits on Google for: Iroha Kohinata BaggataWay keys words search near all of them are blog, scanlation, download, read-only pages. Scanlation is stale at chapter 3. Side note, i found no licensor in French, German, Italian & Spanish. --KrebMarkt 08:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
update: Changed to userfy. After further reflexion, the good editing work should be salvaged but the chance to have it back to main space is slim, not a top dog in Japan, sport manga being a hard sell in North America. Salvation may come from anime adaptation and/or licensing in Europe probably France where sport manga do sell (Hajime no Ippo or Beach Stars) --KrebMarkt 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until the article can be improved. Since I do not speak japanese, I request the OA provide translations of relevant citations. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up all the personal blog citations myself except the one associated with AkibaBlog ^[1] - which it is a professional blog created by Akihabara insider. So I hope the article now meet guideline in authentic citations. I will try to work on more info before the deletion process move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scchan (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, there's all sorts of little indications that this probably is notable by the demands of WP:BK, but so far the case isn't proven enough for me to say keep it. I haven't been able to find anything more with my poor linguistic skills. Since I fully believe that it eventually can be proven, userfy to the article creator's space to allow that editor more time to make the case. Deletion would be a waste of good work. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Original author): From I added more information to the page in question - focusing on more accountable info in notability (3rd party created professionally websites about the title), and detail of the manga in question. I will try to get a few more edits before the 7 day period. Please let me know; Sorry if I am unable to work on all the comments I have received. Thanks.

PS: Sorry for forgetting to sign again >< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scchan (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Management consulting conference[edit]

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

Declined speedy. Article about a conference given by a company whose Wikipedia article was speedy deleted three years ago. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A big one. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 18:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references establishing WP:N. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ammons[edit]

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

Just another plaintiff lawyer with some victories to his name; we don't need another thousand articles on everybody on the Lawdragon lists!!!! Orange Mike | Talk 16:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these seem to be the major ranking lists within the profession, and we normally do accept the profession;s standards. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - but does appearing on one website's list of a thousand practicioners really attest to meeting the standards of the profession? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another lawyer. -R. fiend (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lawyer rankings are quite unreliable - essentially everyone just votes each other onto them for a communal PR boost - and being in the "top 500" is hardly a claim to notability. All that aside, I am not seeing significant coverage of the subject, as opposed to the cases in which he has been involved, in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment there are over 500,000 attorneys in the US [12]. It is perfectly reasonable that atthe very least the top one tenth of one percent of them would be notable--I'd say an presum,ption for the top 1% would be realistic. . WP is NOT PAPER, & we can include all who qualify for the standard lists of notable lawyers. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Something is wrong with the article here (or was until I fixed it). He does not appear on the Top 500 overall, merely on the top 500 plaintiff lawyer list. Plaintiff lawyers are a narrow category of specialists. There certainly aren't 500,000 plaintiff lawyers. This is why I'm uncomfortable with subjective opinions of notability: not only are they subjective, they can be based on incorrect or unreliable information or assumptions. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs), rationale was "‎G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One night stand productions". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One night stand productions[edit]

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

Booking agency that appears to fail notability guidelines. Can't see any significant coverage in reliable sources. Beloved Freak 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm surprised that you even bought it here. I would have simply speedied it as promotional. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- will do --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I very nearly tagged it for speedy deletion, but felt there was a slight assertion of importance (and had others deemed it as notable the promotional aspect could have been eliminated).--Beloved Freak 17:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, per WP:NOT#DIR. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Room Club Locations[edit]

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

This article is only a list. DimaG (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - "only a list" isn't a valid reason to delete an article. See WP:LIST. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopedic content, and rather spamy IMHO. Crown Room Clubs themselves are not notable; this is not directly obvious because the list is presented as list of links to airports, which of course are. This would be directly analogous to "List of airports with Taco Bell franchises". Whoop-de-doo. Studerby (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the locations of a non-notable subject cant really be notable. According the the Delta article they dont appear to exist anymore as they have been changed to Delta Sky Clubs. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename Sky Club locations - This is a valid list and simply being a list is not a valid reason to delete. Also, just because they have been renamed "Sky Clubs" (this was a result of Delta's merger with Northwest Airlines) is not a reason to delete but simply rename.--Oakshade (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Harmless article with useful information, perhaps more suited to a gazateer than an encyclopedia. The article doesn't at present state what the significance of the club is. It seems much of the info is available at Delta Sky Club Jonathan Luckett (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Crown Room Club and modify to be about that. Crown Room Club seems to be notable, and it currently redirects to Delta Airlines. Dew Kane (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you would mean Rename to Sky Club as the "Crown Room Club" name is no longer in use.--Oakshade (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. This is a policy. Let this commercial enterprise pay for its own webhosting. Abductive (reasoning) 02:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominators rationale is not suitable enough. He or she must state a better reasoning then "this article is a list." That is just not sufficient or suitable. Plus some history can be added to the article to enhance it so it looks like more then just a list. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please show how this article isn't a directory, because WP:NOT#DIR point 4 specifically forbids exactly this kind of article. WP:NOT is a WP:Policy. Abductive (reasoning) 18:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm really not seeing the significance of this list and Abductive's point about indiscriminate list seems right on. Otherwise why not a list of bus stations with toilets? There is no encyclopaedic value to this and we should delete it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Witold Milewski (mathematician)[edit]

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

Unsourced and Google Books returns only trivial mentions stemming from being a school director. The Polish Wikipedia has more detailed version but the source seems to be from a privately published, non-independent source. Delete per notability criteria. RDBury (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep director of a gymnasium. I think that this might be closer to college president than the current US high scvhool principal. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no position such as college president in India or China etc. It is principal. --ouieak (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my meaning was, equivalent to the position of President of a US college, which is accepted as meeting WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Gymnasium is indeed equivalent to high school. Even afer reading the article in Polish Wikipedia, I still don't find the subject notable enough. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Strong keep.Changed weak to strong 17:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC) based on the entry in the Polski Słownik Biograficzny found below. The majority of these 87 Google Books search results appear to be about this Witold Milewski, but I can't tell from the snippets displayed whether any individually have significant coverage, but given the fifty-or-so books that mention him there should be enough coverage overall to warrant an article (and, yes, I do understand Polish and German). I would add that a Gymnazium/Gymnasium (high school) in Prussian-administered Poland in the mid-nineteenth century would be at least as important, in terms of the small percentage of the population that would have received that level of education, as a college in the present-day United States. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have we used such ouputs shown above for others? or does such output contribute to our voting here? Thansk. --ouieak (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Google hits make an unconvincing argument imo. Google books frequently has duplicate entries for the same book, or they could be different people with the same name, or it could just be a list of Gymnasium directors that got copied into a bunch of places. It would be more convincing to produce one reference that lists a lasting contribution he made to his field.--RDBury (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are only 9 hits on Google books, of which two are school year reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nageh (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That search is only for books written by Milewski, not which write about him, which are more relevant to notability. This is a better search. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of them contain just a list of people with his name included (e.g., "teachers of the year were..."), or point out that he was head of the gymnasium in those years. One possibly more interesting ref could be "Studia historica Slavo-Germanica", which includes a sentence starting with "A characteristic example is that of the Polish W.M." but then breaks off at the snippet view boundary. There is also one filed patent in metallurgy where his name occurs. So... I cannot find anything obviously notable, but, considering some other pointless articles on wikipedia... Can somebody add more stuff to the article so I can retract my vote? Nageh (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is a classic problem with using WP:PROF. However I would classify it as Weak Keep. --ouieak (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DGG. Gymnasia and academies in the mid-19th c. were much more rigorous than they are today, more akin to normal schools. For examples, see the early hisotries of Albany Academy and SUNY New Paltz. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some 19th cent. academies may meet notability criteria but that does not imply they all do. WP:PROF allows some institutions besides colleges and universities, but I don't see anything there that would extend to pre-college level institutions.--RDBury (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the problems what we solve now are more difficult than what 19th cent. academies did. Again it depends upon the subject and area within the subject. It might be one piece of work which could categorize someone as notable if that one piece of work has helped to develop or take it further. --ouieak (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, two-sentence article makes no claim of notability for this person, and contains no encyclopedic information. Just being the director of some institution is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. Arguments based on hypothesized importance of things in the past are not supported by secondary sources; they are speculation and wishful thinking. I could just as well say that such a person is less important considering how much world civilization has advanced. Abductive (reasoning) 09:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ changed to keep, see below 02:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC). I found his dissertation (in latin, unfortunately) here: [13]. Other than this, I can't find anything. Searching is made somewhat difficult by the fact that there seems to be a materials scientist (author of these books: [14]) and an architect (see here: [15]) of the same name. Most of the results in the Google books search appear to attest to the dissertation being given, but by itself this does not make Milewski notable. Furthermore, a number of them could well refer to the either one of the other two Witold Milewskis that keep turning up.

If some sources turn up that attest to the veracity of the content in this article, I would be happy to change my !vote, but without any evidence of notability, I'm afraid I have to say delete. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the author of De ramis ordinis IV... and the subject of the article are, indeed, the same person. At any rate, it is merely a college thesis, a prerequisite to graduation. NVO (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it is the same person, the article in the Polish Wikipedia about this mathematician mentions the thesis by name. I agree with you that the dissertation would not qualify for notability, and that's why I !voted Weak Delete. However, I've changed now per Laforgue. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Neutral Schools were less common in that era, so a high school principal in the early 19th century may well be equivalent to a small college president today. That said, sources and documentation from those earlier eras are also much more spotty, so there may not be adequate sources to write an article about him, other than to say "he exists." I think there's no harm to Wikipedia from keeping such an article, but I'm dubious about its prospects for ever expanding beyond a one-sentence stub. Ray^Talk 19:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - he was also a translator of some mathematical textbooks (National Library of Poland). While it isn't crucial, stil in the 19th century there weren't as many didactic translations as now. With these translations, he seems to be outstanding as an educator. Laforgue (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~. Just read the article on the Polish wikipedia. He might be a person of local interest in Poland, but ~~given that there isn't even anything notable on the Polish wiki~~there doesn't seem to by anything of apparent notability for inclusion in the international wikipedia. Nageh (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doctor of mathematics (19th century...), teacher in good gymnasiums (Ostrów, Trzemeszno; Maria Magdalena of Poznań - one of the most important in Poland), director of the Trzemszno Gymnasium, translator, member of a state comitee for the matura (in that period close to B.A.), activist in the fight against germanization of the Polish school (it's very important in the history of Greater Poland, and he apparently was very active in this field), activist in the Poznań Society of Friends of Learning (something like a small academy of sciences). Minor things, but still interesting. Laforgue (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but is he notable enough for inclusion in the international wikipedia as opposed to only the Polish one? I don't see it. Changed to weak delete. Nageh (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference between the different Wikipedias is the language in which they are written, not in scope of topics that they cover. This is an encyclopedia about the whole world that happens to be written in English, not an encyclopedia of only the anglophone world. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. What stuff I can sometimes find in my native language wiki is really only of very restricted notability. Acceptable in that wiki for readers from a local area, but not of interest globally IMO. And I was not restricting this wiki to the Anglophone world but I was instead speaking of an international wiki, which in fact should cover both aspects. But looking at this article, I must assess: notability is not absolute, and what might be notable here might not be notable somewhere else. Nageh (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Local notability guidelines on other wikipedias develop independently (or don't develop at all, being replaced with ad hoc reasoning - they don't have the resource pool of en-wiki). Not to mention the world of unwritten cultural conventions. NVO (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I shouldn't make any reference to inclusion guidelines on other language Wikipedias as I'm not familiar with them, but I do know that the guidelines here, at English Wikipedia, do not discriminate against non-Anglophone subjects, so notability in Poland is enough for us to have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he has his own entry in the Polski Słownik Biograficzny, which I checked here: [16]. I should check it earlier... While the article is very short and bad written, inclusion to PSB is a very clear sign of notability. After Easter I'll try to rewrite the articles (both Polish and English - if one will check my style and grammar), using PSB. Laforgue (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nom I'd have to agree that this is evidence of notability. I think at this point it's more important and easier to just add the reference than rewrite the article.--RDBury (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I tried verify the entry myself but ran into the same problems as Lear's Fool. If someone could add a hard reference to PSB, meaning a page number or a link to a specific web page, then I'd agree that notability is satisfied.--RDBury (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With some additional information from Laforgue I stubbed in a reference for PSB. It's based on PSB's article index and I haven't actually seen the entry, but it's apparent that the entry does exist.--RDBury (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per Laforgue. Nageh (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Witold Milewski (mathematician) belongs to this page. thx.--ouieak (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Laforgue. I can't seem to find how to read the Polish Biographical Dictionary on that site (I have to read the site in google translate because I'm pathetically monolingual), but coverage in a third-party source such as this would definitely satisfy the general notability guideline. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the rule is non-trivial coverage in multiple sources, which has not been demonstrated. Abductive (reasoning) 16:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed my comments (fix the format --ouieak (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Unfortunately ) --ouieak (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Is now moot. Specifically no consensus to retain this article and no consensus to delete it and a redirect seems around the right place Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilist paradox[edit]

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

Fails WP:N (see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Nihilist_paradox), no interest for merge into nihilism, see Talk:Nihilism#Merge_of_Nihilist_paradox. Paradoctor (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: "paradox of nihilism" yields a handful of solid hits on Google Scholar, and one on Scirus. The Smarandache source suffices for a redirect to a multi-stub at paradox of nihilism. Paradoctor (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to remark that these scholarly sources describe wildly diverging notions under that moniker. --Lambiam 23:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Permission granted. ;) That's why I mentioned that "multi-stub" bit. Paradoctor (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a ton of stuff out there about this term and concept (see, for example, [17]), but I'm having trouble finding Wikipedia-style reliable sources; it's mostly just web pages. Give me a little time and I'm sure I can source this article to the point of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There, I added two references to the article. It's still a stub, but it's no longer unsourced, and IMO no longer non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Webster" source is interesting in its own right for me, thanks for diggin it up, but the citation is from Wikipedia, I'm afraid. The other source involves Florentin Smarandache, and I want to see evidence that the "peer reviewers" are not his pals. You might want to read this discussion to understand why I'm skeptical about this one. Paradoctor (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's tricky about the little "WP" establishing that the information in the Webster's thing came from Wikipedia! But I don't understand about Smarandache. He is a real person, a real professor at UNM, so why doesn't his writing count? The nihilist paradox is hinted at here, Nietzsche and Paradox, page 26 ("Nihilism can only be defeated by itself, logic can only be overcome by its own limits") and page 129 ("Nietzsche is and remains paradoxical"), but I didn't see it stated explicitly in that work. Still, I think the concept is well established. --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases, which is unrelated to Miriam-Webster publishing, is well-known for it's highgrading of Wikipedia. --Bejnar (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as if they are deleting the material they quote! ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think closer examination will reveal that Smarandache's print-on-demand book will fail WP:RS. I don't want to say anything that might interest the BLP hit squad, but my personal experience with his work indicates that the book's claim to being peer reviewed should not be taken in good faith. But even if it was, we'd still have only a single primary source. The norm is multiple secondary sources. I'm not much of a fan of notability, but the rules being what they are, I'd like to see at least one good source demonstrably independent of Smarandache. Give me that, and I'll withdraw my nomination. Happy hunting, Paradoctor (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a single usage term referring to an epistemological argument that was highlighted by Decartes in his discussion of an evil genius out to deceive him about the world. It is not a term of art. The paradox is of course just a specific instant of the class of paradoxes that occur through self-referential statements. One of the classics being: Everything in moderation, including moderation. Not worth a redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"his discussion of an evil genius": I'd appreciate a cite very much. Paradoctor (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 04:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete: Normally when something is so concise an idea, with few sources, it lives perfectly well as a section in a larger article. If at some point more sources appear and the section becomes cumbersome, it can be moved to its own article. Perhaps MelanieN would be more qualified than me to decide where to move this material to. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget about me. ;) I would love to create a (series of) WP:SETINDEX articles about paradoxes, but I simply won't have the time in the foreseeable future, i. e. this year. Failing that, it would have to be either with the nihilists, who don't want it, or with List of paradoxes. The problem with the latter is that it is a list of notable paradoxes, and already has more than 200 entries. Also note that Smarandache, source criticism aside, merely lists it, he does not discuss it. Without set index article, this one simply has not enough interest to merit even a redirect. Don't worry about the content, though. It, and a lot of other small bits are safe in my wiki, and will resurface sometime in the future. Paradoctor (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could of course always tuck it away in your user space to remind you to sort it out ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss "safe in my wiki"? ;) But you infected me with the idea that a Wikiproject might make sense. I'll mull about that one a bit. Paradoctor (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero hits on Google scholar; only hit on Google books is self-published. No evidence that this is a notable concept. --Lambiam 18:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has WITHDRAWN the AfD - why on earth has it been relisted? Lugnuts (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an appropriate relist. Other people joined in the argument that it should be deleted, and it was no longer under the nominator's control at that point. Mandsford (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the relist, I would just like to point out that we're now talking about whether or not to have a redirect to paradox of nihilism. Paradoctor (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I guess I hadn't overheard that conversation... Mandsford (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this? Otherwise I'd be missing something, apparently. Paradoctor (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that's missing is the "we're" part in the "we're now talking about whether or not to have a redirect". I gather that you're proposing that the title be moved (changed) and the article kept under a new name, rather than having the article deleted, but nobody else is talking about it. As noted, once other people participate, the subject of the discussion is no longer under any one individual's control. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know know where you "gathered", but it can't have been from anything I wrote. Sigh. Let me try again:

Independently from any consideration of "nihilist paradox", a search for "paradox of nihilism" yields enough material for a multi-stub at paradox of nihilism. An incoming redirect from nihilist paradox would then be justified by Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects, specifically

"More specific forms of names",
"Related words" and
"Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article".

Delete unless peer-reviewed references to this paradox can be found. It's certainly an obvious argument, made (I'm sure) repeatedly and independently, so I would not be surprised if it's discussed in the literature — but Florentin Smarandache's self-publications don't count. Rewrite and rename Paradoctor's Google Scholar search does show references, but these references seem thus far unrelated to the article. (We should also be careful here, since a brief look suggests at least two or three related but distinct formulations of the paradox: in terms of truth, meaning or worth of one's life as compared to others' lives.) Phiwum (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a "rewrite", but other than that, this looks to me like what I suggested. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking over the references turned up in the Google scholar search, it's fair to say that the phrase "paradox of nihilism" is not that common, and that it is used differently by each of the authors whose work could be looked at (Aquino, McCarthy, Luhmann, Hegarty). The recently-added source (Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases) is actually drawn from an earlier verison of this article called Nihilist paradox [18], and depends on an overly-simplistic explanation of nihilism (i.e. that nihilists believe that "there are no knowable truths"). I think that what the IP who did the original research on this one in 2004 may have been thinking of was the liar paradox or the Epimenides paradox. Mandsford (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All this has no bearing on this AfD. As long as paradox of nihilism exists, and per the reasons listed two replies up, the redirect is valid. Paradoctor (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request Since the article is now a redirect, the AfD message no longer displays correctly, I think this needs to be fixed somehow.
Comment I suppose that someone can put the deletion tag back up, but after two relists, I think it's more likely that this will be closed as a "no consensus". There's a big difference between a redirect to an article that was already in existence, and moving the title to something different. It would be nice if we could call off a deletion discussion simply by changing the title, and if it were that easy, everybody would be doing it. Only an administrator can close the debate, but I think that everyone has said what they have to say about notability, and the matter is ready for an administrator's decision. Mandsford (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"put the deletion tag back up": It is still there, I didn't remove it. It just isn't displayed anymore.

"call off a deletion discussion simply by changing the title": Huh? If you would please check paradox of nihilism, you'll see that it was written from scratch, and the content owes nothing to what was present at nihilist paradox until now. Besides, I thought consensus was abou exchanging arguments rather than taking sides? Paradoctor (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sha Stimuli[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Prod reason was As far as I can tell the only notability is inherited notability from his brother, something not acceptable as a criterion for inclusion. I do not believe that this artist passes our notability test yet. Should he become notable in the future then the article should return, properly referenced

I have checked the references and links given. One goes to a site that is said to issue malware. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate coverage exists, as indicated on the article's talk page.--Michig (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:08, 19 March 2010 (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) 00:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one of those sites that Michig mentioned was britishhiphop interview which said that Sha Stimuli won "Best Male Rapper Of The Year" award at the 2008 UMA's, and "Best Lyricist" award at the 2007 UMA's. Does anyone know what the "UMA's" are? Are those notable awards? The evident lack of coverage makes me suspect that they are not, but does anybody know? --Bejnar (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 09:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and formatted the links. Silver seren^C 09:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to [19], the UMA in question is underground music awards. The awards show seems to have been on MTV in 2008 [20], but not sure how much that counts as it doesn't look like they covered the 2009 show. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after due consideration and based upon the lack of coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage in reliable sources and the UMA's should count as a necessary nomination/award. Silver seren^C 19:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When one reads the "external links" attached to the article, it is clear that the reliability of the "sources" falls well short of notability standards: blogs, uncritical interviews, etc. In the case of a BLP, the need for reliable sources, as opposed to anything that can be found on the interweb, is all the more acute. In my view, throwing such unreliable external links tacked onto the bottom of a BLP to try to save it from deletion, without any attempt to use the links to verify material in the article, is unhelpful. This must be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has XXL (who reviewed his album), a major print magazine available all around the world, been considered an unreliable source?--Michig (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly sufficient to form the basis for a proper article about the artist. Assuming it is reliable (I'll take your word) it isn't significant coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's both reliable and significant coverage. HipHopDX is also a perfectly good source.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's where I definitely have to disagree. Interviews with an article's subject are effectively self-published material, and reliable sources generally don't provide links to the subject's blog and tweets and contain repetitive exclamation marks. [21] --Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HipHopDX is a major source of hip hop news and music coverage, one with which Sha Stimuli is unaffiliated. Calling their articles on him "self-published" is ridiculous. With regards to the links to blogs/Twitters, online music journalists would be remiss if they didn't include links to Myspace etc. since links are what make the online world go 'round. - DevOhm ^Talk 11:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His album was recently kept at AFD. If there's enough coverage of the album then there's anough coverage of the artist.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't much discussion of the album, and the basis for its notability was not tied to the guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't much discussion, but it was kept because it has received multiple significant coverage in reliable sources and is, per WP:GNG, therefore notable. Coverage of an artist's recordings is also coverage of the artist.--Michig (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two reviews are cited, one to XXL Mag and the other to HipHop DX. There was no claim of significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two reviews are significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage on HipHopDX is legit, especially considering its status as a major site for hip hop news and music. Collaboration with known artists and producers like Just Blaze, Freeway, and T-Pain further supports notability. Finally, coverage in at least two big-time print publications (XXL and Source) should really end this discussion. - DevOhm ^Talk 11:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'd agree with Michig's assessment here. Even though there is not a huge amount of coverage, enough third-party sources have noticed this musician that, per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1 we ought to have an article about him. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Center[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. ttonyb (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Not done anything apart from finish college. Szzuk (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN the only G News results are unrelated. CTJF83 chat 05:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage of her, and agree she doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost notable, an exceptional student but no achievements outside of school it would appear. Icewedge (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2012[edit]

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

As per WP:CRYSTAL, international competition not yet existing E Wing (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Little can be said about the event that is verifiable and not original research. See [22],[23]. — Rankiri — Rankiri (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL. See also Miss Universe 2011. Cnilep (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reason that I used when nominating it alongside 2013's contest last week. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Deleted (WP:A3) by User:R'n'B. (non-admin closure) I'm splitting the 2 years apart into 2 different AfDs, due to the speedy of 2013. CTJF83 chat 05:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2013[edit]

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

I PRODded this last night - saying that "Wp:TIND - 2010 is way too early to have a page for 2013's contest." An anon user came along and removed the PROD, so here it comes. I should probably have put Wp:CRYSTAL in the PROD as well. (I'm guessing that, because the reference given says, "NBC has renewed its exclusive agreement… to broadcast the "Miss Universe" and "Miss USA" pageants on the network for three additional years effective in 2011").

I am including the following for the same reason (although someone else PRODded it - stating "Per Wp:CRYSTAL - but that was contested as well):

DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2013: speedy delete, WP:A3.
Miss Universe 2012: delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Little can be said about the event that is verifiable and not original research. See [24], [25]. — Rankiri (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leiden International Short Film Festival[edit]

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

Non-notable student-run film festival. The single reference that has been found is from the university's student newspaper. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable festival from non-notable club. Canterbury Tail talk 13:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation if or when this Leiden event ever gains notability, as according to their own website, they were created in 2009 and so far the event has only happened once... with a second slated for May 2010. Too soon for this article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In agreement with comment by Schmidt. Given some time, this may become a noteworthy affair. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Wojciechowski[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet general notability guidelines. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. Some magazines are mentioned that his work is featured in, but there are no references to back this up, and it is unclear how significant the coverage is. No evidence that he meets WP:ARTIST either. Beloved Freak 12:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable...Modernist (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless anyone finds adequate suitable sources, which are entirely absent at the moment. Ty 00:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cemil Uylukçu[edit]

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

The sources used in the article is directly related with the subject person. The notibility is not clear. Non of the sources used in the document are reliable sources. Manco Capac (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article meets the notability criteria in my opinion because EBMAS is a huge organization located more than 43 countries having more than 15.000 students worldwide. Cemil Uylukçu is the chief instructor of Turkey and Bulgaria of this organization. He has a notable sports background. He is one of the most recognized in Wing Tsun and Escrima in Turkey.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alemomer (talk • contribs) [26]

Delete BLP lacking reliable sources; would require a hell of a rewrite and sourcing to make it an acceptable article. I suggest deletion, because I don't see a way of fixing these problems. If anyone is able to produce sources to demonstrate notability (see also WP:BIO), then please let me know and I shall reconsider. Chzz ► 06:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reliable-source coverage of him at all, just self-promotion. I agree that the article itself is grotesquely metastasized and would require a fundamental rewrite if kept, but I don't think this guy passes WP:BIO to begin with. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source -- this could be partly because so much of the article appears to be sourced from blogs, primary sources related to the subject, and so on. If someone who cares about the article were to delete all the many article claims that come from the unsuitable sources, it would be easier to detect if anything is left that, just might be, reliably sourced. N2e (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources. Non-notable martial artist (see WP:MANOTE and WP:ATHLETE). 72.20.219.166 (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:ATH and WP:RS. Papaursa (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn by nominator on the basis of sources presented DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan Wikipedia[edit]

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

fails our inclusion guidelines; sources are not third-party, since they're us or the Foundation. Ironholds (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are very easy to find, both as "Catalan Wikipedia" [27] and as "Viquipèdia" [28]. Warrah (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of which seem to fail WP:GNG all over again, because they don't demonstrate significant coverage; they're brief snippets. Ironholds (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question can someone search for Catalan language results and let me know what is found? CTJF83 chat 05:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's absurd deleting this article. All languages in Wikipedia have their own article.--Galazan (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, no, they don't. Secondly, even if they did, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Ironholds (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of external references in ca:Viquipèdia:Notícies sobre la Viquipèdia. Somebody should add some of them as references in the article. Paucabot (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a scholarly reference which confirms the projects status as the most substantial Wiki in a regional language. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I have no problem with withdrawing this nom, assuming someone can do the honours (never worked it out). Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am happy to see that the proposer has withdrawn his AfD. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kabbalistic shamanism[edit]

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

Unsourced essay full of original research. œ ^™ 08:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, hopelessly promotional. I see no sense in trying to rescue any of this information. a new article on the person could (and must) be created from scratch, if sources exist.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The critical issue, as Mercurywoodrose notes, is the lack of sourcing. If sources emerge, we can work through cleaning the article, but it's an exercise in futility of the subject cannot be shown to be notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deletion of the snowball variety. Marasmusine (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Living In Runescape[edit]

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

PROD deleted by creator without comment - Fails WP:NOTMANUAL Codf1977 (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced original research and because Wikipedia is not a manual or how-to guide.--Beloved Freak 13:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete -- a classic example of WP:NOTMANUAL. There's no way for this article to survive, so let it snow. --Teancum (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete A good faith effort to help new RS players, but a misunderstanding of what WP is for. Guides like these are important for complex MMOGs, which is why they're quickly put together on fansites and game-specific wikis, there'll be several out there for RuneScape. Someone another 16:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Soon, if not now. The intent is good, but sadly misplaced as we are not the RuneScape Wiki, a fansite, or any how-to manual. Others have already said it - this concretes it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Braintree Public Schools. JForget 00:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Braintree Liberty Elementary School[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable primary school. No g-news hits that i can find. The relatively few Google web hits seem to be either directory-typ mentions or very trivial and routine local mentions. Seems to fail WP:MILL. DES ^(talk) 07:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 07:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per my nom unless independent reliable sources found and cited that clearly establish notability. DES ^(talk) 07:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yet another completely unremarkable elementary school article.. and I won't miss it if it gets deleted, but why pick on this particular one out of all those in Category:Elementary schools in Massachusetts? -- œ ^™ 10:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Feel free to file on those as well. Fails WP:N, WP:RS. Ravenswing 13:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because i happened to notice this one on new page patrol. DES ^(talk) 17:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why pick on this one? Because it's new. Worth a mention in Braintree Public Schools. As for the [29], they may or may not get nominated for deletion. Since Wikipedia is run by the participants, not by a committee, there's no consistent rule on whether something will or won't get nominated. Mandsford (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Braintree Public Schools, the usual action with nn elementary schools. TerriersFan (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Braintree Public Schools. Nothing beyond the average elementary school, and previous AFDs have typically merged their articles to the school district. Fails WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete g11, blatant ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be-Be Dragovitch Designs[edit]

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

non-notable Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 06:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Promotional article written by the hotel's PR, WP:CSD#G11 Guy (Help!) 11:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Swissôtel Nai Lert Park, Bangkok[edit]

This article doesn't met the general notability guideline. It doesn't illustrate the notability. Also, the article appears to be an advert by Polly911 (talk · contribs), who may have Conflict of interest about this topic. (See the user contribs). Harley Hartwell (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Luxury hotels are usually written about enough to make them notable. I added some references, including one about the death of actor David Carradine at the hotel. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHAIN stated that there shouldn't be articles for individual store unless that individual store is notable from certain circumstance, such as notable architecture or Events dealing with that individual store, which write about the event, not places. This hotel WP:FAILN both conditions to make it notable. Death of one common actor doesn't make it more notable than it was before, because his unusual death should be write in his article. --Harley Hartwell (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Dharma Initiative. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanso Foundation[edit]

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

Element of fiction with, in my opinion, no significant evidence of real-world notability; most of the article is written from an in-universe perspective, much of which seems to be speculative. PROD was disputed, so bringing it here. (I would suggest merging to a parent article, but there doesn't seem to be any appropriate one.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, into either Lost (TV Series) or one of its associated articles, probably Dharma Initiative --it's a plot element in the series and that seems the closest association; someone who actually knows the series can do better to suggest one than I, or I'd have done it myself. What I do know, is that there is no reason to lose the information, and WP:BEFORE is the applicable policy. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dharma Initiative is probably the best merge target; I'm not a Lost expert but as far as I know Hanso is supposed to be what funds Dharma, so this article could become a short section somewhere in that one. Lost (TV series) is not a good merge target because it wouldn't be appropriate to have such minor plot information in the parent article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not a Lost expert, though. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 04:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've watched all of the Lost series but I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's article rules. I don't think it's necessary to merge this with the DHARMA Initiative. It has yet to be seen in the final series of the show if The Hanso Foundation has a lot of further significance outside of funding the DHARMA Initiative. I think that the article's documentation of the alternate-reality game, real-world websites and other "Lost" marketing methods are interesting and noteworthy. I'd actually like to see more information about details of the fictional "Hanso Foundation" from the web-sites that are now shut-down and the alternate-reality game, whether these are included in this article or merged with the DHARMA Initiative article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.237.10 (talk • contribs)
Merge with Dharma Initiative per above. I've followed the show for a while now, and this foundation's role is not very significant in my opinion. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Society for All British and Irish Road Enthusiasts[edit]

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

Not notable, society is briefly referred to in a newspaper article. This is not significant coverage. ZoeL (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Has anyone tried to put this up through A7? ShawnIsHere (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated in nomination. ZoeL (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma Unorganized Militia[edit]

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

After looking, I could not find any reliable sourcing speaking of the "Oakland Unorganized Militia, therefore I question whether this article should be deleted because it is not notable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you typed "Oakland" instead of "Oklahoma" when you were searching. :) Mandsford (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is absolutely no excuse for no sourcing for this, but it is referred to in state law (Oklahoma Statutes section 44-41) which was raised as a defense in a 2001 case. On the other hand, the statement that this is also called the "Oklahoma militia" is an insult to the Oklahoma National Guard. Where mentioned at all, this does not refer to a state-approved body [30]. Unfortunately, this Wikipedia article gets quoted and requoted. Mandsford (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while checking for sources, I too ran across that US v Hanley court ruling. In it John Hanley argues that because he belongs to the "Oklahoma Unorganized Militia" he should be acquitted of the crime of owning an unregistered machine gun, though the appeals court rejected his reasoning as frivolous. Still, this there is essentially no other mention of the topic of this article in reliable sourcing that I could find. This falls far short of the policy threshold which is: significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This situation necessitates three correctly sourced sentences in Oklahoma Department of the Military about the state law and probably the court case you refer to. It might require a one sentence mention in the Govt of Oklahoma or Oklahoma article itself. This is a paper force only and as such, does not require an independent article. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsourced and for statements whose accuracy is questionable. The equally unsourced article Oklahoma Department of the Military is just as suspect, in my opinion. For some reason, I don't turn that up at all in anything put on the Internet by the State of Oklahoma. There's an Adjutant General who commands the state national guard. Articles like this belong on absoluteastronomy.com and on extremist websites. Mandsford (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After checking for sources for Oklahoma Department of the Military I agree that that article too is not notable, and started an AfD for it too. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oklahoma Department of the Military SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Buckshot06. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. JForget 00:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O Outro Lado Da Porta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

renominating as last AfD was hardly a real discussion. as a musical DVD compilation, WP:NALBUMS apply. clearly fails this. gets passing mentions in third party coverage [31]. the last keep vote is hardly convincing LibStar (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - it appears that this article is for an album/music DVD for a pretty notible band, however; if it is to stay, some better references will be needed as the source links for the article link to purchase websites not written in english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker264 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep From a simple Google News Archive search, I was able to find about 20 sources from primary newspapers (Spanish and Portuguese ones), though I only added about half of them to the article. I didn't want to clutter up the EL's more than I just did. The album is very notable, as there are multiple sources that are strictly about the album itself, not just Fresno. Silver seren^C 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Berthoud, Colorado. Orlady (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire Theater Company[edit]

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

Non notable theatre. DimaG (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You can't find *any* independent sources. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 06:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge performed I have merged the content into the article about the small town where this community theater group is located. I don't have a strong opinion on whether the page should be deleted or redirected to Berthoud, Colorado#Community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds Finest Rolla German Band[edit]

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

Non notable organization. DimaG (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —— Gwalla | Talk 04:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no claim of notability, no sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas EP (The Fray album)[edit]

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

Only a primary source, no categories. Self released. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're a popular globally reknowned band. Every album and EP released by them is likely to be notable. Even if it isn't very good. There will be plenty of refs out there. Szzuk (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every album by a band as popular and notable as The Fray should have an article. The reason it is hard to find sources is because it wasn't a publicly-released album, it was just for members of their fan club. It is also in The Fray's discography article as added by other editors and album artwork was released by The Fray. Forenti ^talk 05:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Fray are a popular band and as such all their albums are considered notable. Their discography page mentions this article so an article about it is needed. Shoalla (talk)07:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Fray are a well known mainstream band and every record they release is notable. As for this particular one, Christmas EP was not a EP they recorded as an original. Just a small free Christmas gift. That's why info is not much but that's no reason to delete the article. It is part of the band's catalog and is still noteworthy. Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I support the above statements in favor of keeping the page. It is definitely notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Imrahil (talk • contribs) 15:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added a third reference about the EP. And I do feel that the article has to be kept. It is not incomplete or unreferenced. It is not incomplete or unreferenced. All the information that is available about the EP has been added and though it might be small, it is still notable. 115.108.119.202 (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movement EP[edit]

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

Self released EPs. No secondary sources found. Second one is sourced only to an unreliable fansite. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Reason EP - Allmusic Review. Further (brief) coverage from Dallas Morning News, and CNET describing it as a "career changing EP". Less found for the Movement EP, but it could be argued that the band are sufficiently notable that all of their releases merit articles.--Michig (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a WP:INHERITED argument, but I will grant that the Allmusic coverage is a start. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, just common sense.--Michig (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reason EP was originally released on an independant label but was re-released in 2007. It was not self-released. It has a page on amazon.com and was where the fray first gained recognition for their work. The Fray are also a notable band and this ep is featured in there discography page and as such should have a page of its own —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoalla (talk • contribs) 07:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both should be kept. There are plenty of arguments to support for the Reason EP; it was the EP that got them signed, that won them fame in Denver, that eventually impressed Mike Flynn and got the band signed. As for Movement, it is part of the band's catalog; it is included in their discography; it was the first release of a band that later went big. There really seems no reason to delete it. Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added info about the impact and reception of the EP. It is no longer a stub; it has multiple sources; it no longer warrants any deletion. Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both the EP's must be kept. I agree with the above statements in favor of keeping both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Imrahil (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming clan magazine[edit]

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

Contested prod. Magazine with no assertion of notability. Only one Google hit, and it is this article. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as rapidly as possible. Abductive (reasoning) 01:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB. — Rankiri (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge/Redirect to Rebirth (Lil Wayne album). Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Today (Rebirth Mix)[edit]

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

Uncharted, unsourced, non-notable song. The only source is a link to youtube. The song is not on any album and wasn't released as a single. Str8cash (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/pare back to redirect. The song did chart, per discussion on the talk page. However, there's not enough other material on the song for an article currently. A redirect back to the artist's page would be an acceptable outcome. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, for finding a source, i had great trouble actually finding that it charted, and even though i can't open the page to find it's chart, i believe it did. Str8cash (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dont u see the article it has charted even check out an Admin's disscution about it on the TALK page. It is noteable this Str8cash likes to mess with the article cause he doesnt understand its more important than quite a few articles on wikipedia. He has been fighting me over this issue it should not be deleated.STATicVerseatide 02:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rebirth (Lil Wayne album). Absolutely doesn't deserve its own article. Nageh (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep i believe this song is important and should be in wikipedia. It states what lil wayne felt at the time he wrote the song. The song has charted on the biggest chart in america the Billboard Hot 100. Its not on an album, that is true but neither is Lil Wayne's song Kobe Bryant (song) and this song charted higher than that song. Seroiusly there are worse songs that have indipendent articles. The information suld not be deleated from Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by STATicVerseatide (talk • contribs) 23:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are three songs by this artist that reached the US top 10 charts, one of them becoming an international hit (Lollipop). Surprisingly, none of these three songs are listed as notable songs in the artist's single discography template. Instead, a song like this one (#76) is pointed out as a notable song. There is no rationale why this song should be favored among the other 21 US top 100 songs by this artist. Again, suggest merge to his recent album. Nageh (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment the song is under OTHER noteable songs. OTHER NOTEABLE SONGS is for songs that were not released as singles but yet recieved chart sucess enough to warent an article. You will find songs like "Lolipop", "A Milli" and "Got Money" under the Tha Carter III section of the template because they were singles off that album. STATicVerseatide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:STATicVerseatide) 06:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, right, I should have taken another look. I am surprised that almost every song has its own article, even if some of them are of exceptionally poor content, including this one. Will the article be extended? Because in its current state it does not deserve to be a separate article from Rebirth (Lil Wayne album), which already says that the song was released to promote the album. And I'm confident that the youtube link refers to a video that violates copyrights. Nageh (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rebirth (Lil Wayne album) - Clearly an un-notable promotional song which does not deserve it's own article. I also feel the same about "Kobe Bryant (song)" Nageh sums up clearly the reasons a merge action is required.
Keep A charting song warrants its own article under OTHER as STATicVerseatide said. If it redirected, then redirect it to the discography. Redirecting to an album that it has nothing to do with is asinine. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belitsoft[edit]

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

Non-notable small company; neither evidence nor assertion of notability (you don't "catch" notability by partnering with Microsoft) Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The coverage related to the company selling its software to the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University might be worth something, but is probably not enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added this article since I considered it to be notable. Belarus has little articles about its economy, industry, I tried to find something valuable and notable. Since there is a section Software companies of Belarus on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies_of_Belarus, why not to try to find and add there notable things?

I beleive I should try to keep the article and first basis can be alternate criteria for commercial organizations, products and services described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMPANY#Products_and_services. As I know from the company's site they have notable products SharePointLMS and JoomlaLMS. When the product is notable, the company can be considered notable too. Correct me when I'm wrong.
The second basis is the attempt to improve the text and to find more interesting information about this company and its products and services. I know that when the information can be considered advertising, article is nominated for speedy deletion, please, advise may I add in the article information about its products SharePointLMS and JoomlaLMS and maybe awards of this company projetcs, services? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minsksky (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Yet another business to business tech/service outfit: provides software application and systems development, re-engineering, testing, design, maintenance and support services. A website they created ranked 8th in a competition. They have made a sale. They've collaborated with Microsoft to make sure that their offerings are compatible with Microsoft software. Nothing to take this outside the realm of the run of the mill. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Again here is missed the products notability which is the basis to keep the article according to the wiki rules. Please, consider this. WP:PRODUCT Also this article has reliable secondary sourses references which is also the argument for to be kept on wiki.213.184.248.211 (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Products mentioned are offered by Elearningforce, and their production only outsourced to Belitsoft. Notability not provided. Nageh (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable company. The references are a mirage and don't say anything with regard to notability. Szzuk (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Die Abrechnung[edit]

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

Non-notable song —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. A diss track, not part of any album, allmusic doesn't even list it, no significant coverage of the song in reliable sources, according to google news – fails WP:NSONGS. Apparently there was some controversy around it, but only very minor. A redirect to Eko Fresh#Kool Savas is probably warranted though. Amalthea 11:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The song and the response by Kool Savas had massive coverage on German MTV and VIVA (another TV-music channel). Even regular newscasts reported about this controversy, since the response showed an Eko Fresh Look-A-Like getting put to grave (which was new in German rap). Apart from Savas there where a couple of other response tracks by notable German rappers Fler, Bushido (rapper),… The song itself is most possible notable, but that is not an article. --Blunt. (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, alright. But that still sounds like the song is only noteworthy as part of the larger "dispute"? A fine line, but I don't really see any in-depth coverage of it, and we don't have any verifiable material either. Consequently, with the dispute spanning more issues than the song, it should be kept at Eko Fresh#Kool Savas and/or Kool Savas#Eko Fresh, in my opinion, with the song redirecting to the former. Amalthea 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the song was also relevant for the relationship between Eko and Bushido, who later signed Eko to his label ersguterjunge, as Eko called Bushido "Muschido" ("Muschi" is German for vagina). Only the first part aims at Savas, the rest aims at most other German rappers which where popular at that time (Fler, Sido, MC Rene, Sentence, B-Tight, Kaput, Nikkon, Costa, Armar – Mostly Aggro Berlin or Optik Records "staff" at that time). The topic is rather complex. But the current article doesn't explain anything, so lets delete this one. We would need another article, which covers German or rather Berlins Hip-Hop beef between 2004 and 2009 (I wouldn't write it) Blunt. (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Merge to Eko Fresh vs. Kool Savas feud, or merge to Eko Fresh#Kool Savas and/or Kool Savas#Eko Fresh and delete Eko Fresh vs. Kool Savas feud as well. Nageh (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Which are you for, merge or delete? Merge and delete is not a valid resolution because the public license requires that attribution be preserved. — Gwalla | Talk 02:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, there is no problem rewriting that little information that is in within one of the other articles I have cited. Delete. Nageh (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nine on's[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nine on's

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

Fails WP:Product, no verifiable sources, no implication of notability. Only link is to the online ordering page for the product. Article discusses the ordering process (including mentioning a confirmation page) and reads somewhat like an advertisement. Aka042 (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia isn't a "Bingo products pricing and ordering" directory. If these tickets are in any way notable, I'd think a brief mention at Bingo (U.S.) should suffice -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bingo_(U.S.). This appears to be a standard bit of bingo terminology. It's defined in the first source found [32]. Hobit (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Na, not enough for bingo terminology, which could probably go on forever Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge to Bingo card. Seems to be a slang phrase.--Auric (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge/Redirect The lack of reliable sourcing is clearly a concern that the keep side have failed to overcome but there does appear to be consensus that some of the material can me merged to Bath Spa University. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bath Spa University Students' Union[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bath Spa University Students' Union

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

Fails WP:GROUP. non-notable, no significant coverage in third party sources. Aka042 (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recognised university society and part of national network, see Category:English students' unions. Cjc13 (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Students' Union is just like many more in England and elsewhere, and many have articles in Wikipedia. I admit to the lack of other references, but the same could be said of other such articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF as it seems the arguments above are very close to the arguments discussed in that section. Just because other similar articles exist does not mean this one should automatically be included; instead, the article must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:N). None of the three sources listed on the page are independent: two are from the organizaiton's own web site and another is a link to a facebook page. --Aka042 (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in many independent student guides such as in the Guardian, which describes it as "a well established music venue". Cjc13 (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly consider one sentence to be "significant" coverage. --Aka042 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Bath Spa University. The main article has plenty of room for the miniscule amount of sourced information about this run-of-the-mill organisation. A standalone article for this topic is inappropriate; there are no secondary sources that analyze it. Abductive (reasoning) 01:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect per the above. Clearly fails the test of significant coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't matter what other WP articles are out there. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The topic might be best dealt with as a section in the article about the university but this will not be achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' The student association of a major university is a first order division of the university and justifies an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "first order division"? What policy or guideline are you referring to that says divisions are entitled to an article when they have no secondary sources? Because Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines#Sub-articles says the opposite. What evidence is there that this is a "major" university? Abductive (reasoning) 03:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bath Spa University unless sources can be found to establish notability in its own right. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some other sources that describe other projects that the group has been involved in. I believe that they are notable enough to have a separate article. Silver seren^C 20:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boxhead[edit]

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

Contested prod. I've searched several times, and I can't find anything to demonstrate the notability of these flash games. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, because I don't know whether to support or oppose - I'm on the fence. I did, however, find two news articles, on Wired and Macworld, along with several pages referencing the game in Japanese and French - but since I can't read either language, I don't know if they are notable or not. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 13:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - verifiable (through the Wired and Macworld sources), but not necessarily notable. Right now I think the best move is to redirect to List of browser games. Marasmusine (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete They're apparently all non-notable with the possible exception of Zombie Wars, which was released on iPhone, thus getting a review on Slide to Play. A review on Jay is Games has been kicking around for yonks (it's a review of the original flash version), so yes there are sources. Since one is a flash review and the other is an iPhone review, it's not even possible to put them side by side when it comes to reception because they're looking at different versions. While 'multiple' is usually accepted as meaning more than one when it comes to notability, in this instance I don't think it's workable, hence weak delete. Someone another 02:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Someone. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations[edit]

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

This seems to be a non-notable group, and the article, and the attending links, seem to be self-promotional, rather than educational, in direct conflict with Wikipedia's goals. Abebenjoe (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a number of sources. I got 360 hits on Google News, so I think notability is easily established here. Silver seren^C 18:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written, external link section seems to be a bunch of random links, with nothing in the body of the article to make them meaningful. The question of notability still exists.Abebenjoe (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not in the body of the article because I didn't feel like taking the time to put them in as references. If you feel they should be, see WP:SOFIXIT. You have not stated at all how or even if the sources don't establish notability. Silver seren^C 19:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the citations are not properly integrated into the body of the article, and the fact that article is poorly written, means it is non-notable. If you strongly feel it should stay, start fixing up the article yourself.Abebenjoe (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a long-established organization that has promoted tenant rights in the Toronto area for many years. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a notable group. They have rather minor membership and have not been actively involved in any major legislation or any successful movements for change. The links they posts are all self-promotional to sell memberships and the top of their website is trying to sell car rentals and tenant insurance. Their postings has been done by "10 Ants" and one other person without a login identity and they have been involved in no other postings so their only interest seems to be in making money off of Wikipedia. tenant (talk ) 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that you just said has nothing to do with its notability. The descriptions in reliable, secondary sources like those newspapers are most definitely not self-promotional. What their website is for doesn't matter at all and who made the article doesn't matter at all. If you believe that the article is not NPOV, then you should fix it, but we're here to discuss the notability of the subject and it's usage in reliable, secondary sources. Silver seren^C 20:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search of Toronto newspapers indicates that this group has generated a number of news articles over the years so the group is notable. See, for example The Toronto Star's archive Funwheel (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Cultural icon. Tone 15:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global icon[edit]

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

unencyclopedic, tautological, original research --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cultural icon, there is much overlap. I believe this article was originally created to house a sales link for a loosely-related DVD and the original author lost interest when an ISBN was substituted for the link. --CliffC (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cultural icon, I agree with Cliff. They are basically the same thing. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smathers & Branson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Smathers & Branson

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

Non-notable company, no references, article serves only to promote. PhGustaf (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that this is aboutan upscale American fashion clothing brand that specializes in needlepoint belts. Google News finds only trivial coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment if the writer can show that the brand is featured in Vanity fair and another publication via references, then we should be able to keep this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have added references. Page could still be expanded but the subject is sufficiently noteworthy and should now be maintained.Baseballtom (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean references in the independent publications. So if Vanity fair writes about it, we need a reference that says which edition and page it is on. And a model that just happens to wear an accessary made by the company without any explanation does not count as a reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but those seem to be pretty subjective and strict standards for citation. I really have no idea how to get hold of an old issue like that but I feel the article as it stands states its relevancy. In any case, there are two other full references to external publications on the page already. have no stake in the company, so I'd be glad to trim the article down if it seems overly promotional. I wouldn't say the brand is major, but it is quickly growing and has enough recognizability in the Eastern United States to merit a wikipedia page (there are many less noteworthy brands with pages already).Baseballtom (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If Vanity Fair devoted a feature article to this business and its wares, that would be significant. If they added a tag to a model photo or a collection of items that said "Belt by Smathers & Branson" on a model photograph, that would not be significant. Even the material at their press page seems to be almost exclusively the latter. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis of Tlön, conditional on no additional references. Baseballtom, regarding the criteria, please see WP:OSE and WP:N. As for getting hold of an 'old' issue of Vanity Fair, my suggestion would be a trip to a local library, best of luck. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability has not been established as far as I can see. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Weight of consensus appears to support deletion. I note that Culturalrevival, one of the keep supporters, made his comment contingent upon sourcing, which has not been added.--Kubigula (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhi Hindus[edit]

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

Was listed as a speedy. The speedy criteria do not apply since this is not an individual or organization. The article is certainly not an example of our best work, and I don't know enough about the subject to determine whether it should be kept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This article has some potentially valuable information. I think that the community could work together to merge this article, or perhaps get some references. Babylonian Armor (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sindhi people contains the interesting naming and historical information from this article, and treats the entire topic much better. Merge not needed. Jisakujien (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - should be tagged with multiple issues for cleanup, wikify, and unreferenced, but an attempt should be made to salvage. Dew Kane (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep needs multiple reliable sources. I will change my vote if none are provided. Culturalrevival (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Article Incubator (I tagged it with CSD) - Without reliable sources it fails the Verifiability policy and as per the nom "certainly not an example of our best work", I do think the Sindhi people is a much better article. I hoped that during the AfD the artical would be improved and am also minded to agree with Dew Kane in that an attempt should be made to salvage, hence my suggestion to move it to the Article Incubator. Codf1977 (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. sorry about the relist JForget 00:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planetizen[edit]

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

This article has been previously speedied and keeps reappearing. It is about a web site that has, at best, passing mention in any independent sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Dozens of apparently independent reliable sources describe it as "leading" in its field with no apparent prompting from Planetizen itself. Wired Magazine considers Planetizen's opinions worth reporting here, the Charlotte Observer thinks likewise here (sadly behind a paywall), and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution independently comes to the same conclusion here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Planetizen is a major clearing house of the latest developments on urban planning, and so far represents the broadest inclusion of planning debates on the web (or elsewhere). The Web is full of references to Planetizen articles, going over the past several years. To consider its deletion is unthinkable! Nikos Salingaros 28 March 1020. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikos.salingaros (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because "Planetizen" has a Google hit score of 120,000 (disproving The Uninvited assertion about only passing mention). Because it is a publisher, along with Island Press, of highly topical debates on urban planning issues, e.g. Planetizen's Contemporary Debates in Urban Planning (with some 50 authors from diverse perspectives), and Planetizen's 2009 Guide to Graduate Urban Planning Programs. The Uninvited may not be aware of its influence among professionals, but it is a significant web resource for a small but highly influential population of public planning officials, private urban planning consultants, developers and others who have a strong impact on the shape of development, particularly in the US (but also globally). The fact that few outside the profession understand the significance of developments covered by Planetizen is an argument for keeping the article - not for its deletion. --Michaelmehaffy (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Jones (Basketball)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ATHLETE, contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are valid sources by ESPN and the WVU basketball site, and averaging nearly 14 ppg this season is pretty impressive. This nom would suggest that most if not all college player pages are not notable. Str8cash (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure why this is being nominated right in the middle of the NCAA tournament. Last night, Kevin Jones scored 18 points to lead WVU to a 69-56 victory over Washington to take the team to the "Elite Eight", and it's possible that RadioFan's nomination had something to do with it. Read the article [33]. Mandsford (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's focus on the article shall we? I dont appreciate the accusation of bias. I dont see the article as meeting WP:ATHLETE, perhaps if/when this player reaches the NBA, they will establish notability sufficiently for a Wikipedia article, but not today. There is a reason why there are not articles on each NCAA athlete.--RadioFan (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I accused you of any type of bias, and if it came across that way, then I apologize. Bad timing, yes, since he's getting more coverage at the moment than he probably has received up until now, but bias, no. I was just joking about Kevin Jones being inspired by the nomination to lead his team to victory last night. In fact, the reporters asked him if the Wikipedia discussion had affected his performance, and he said that it didn't, or maybe I'm just making that up. You're correct that he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, which doesn't confer any special treatment for college basketball players. On the other hand, I think that he is one of the few NCAA players who has the potential to demonstrate notability in the usual way per WP:N. As a Kentucky Wildcats fan, I think that his season will end tomorrow, but he gets more substantial coverage, from independent sources, than most players do. Mandsford (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:ATHLETE is not an exclusionary policy. Jones is a prominent college basketball player. matt91486 (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Correct, it is a part of a larger inclusion policy which determines what is worthy of inclusion and what isn't. I'm still not seeing him as meeting WP:ATHLETE or WP:BIO, there is coverage, but not significant coverage where he is the subject of the article, not just mentioned in the context of an article on a particular game or the team as a whole.--RadioFan (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RadioFan is right. No college basketball player gets the inherent notability of WP:ATHLETE simply for playing college basketball. Matt is correct also-- WP:ATHLETE doesn't exclude anyone; in basketball, it gives a "free pass" to players at the fully professional level, or amateurs who play(ed) in the Olympics. An argument could be made that Jones qualifies in the usual way (he wasn't the star tonight, but his season didn't end tonight, and my favorite team's season did). Mandsford (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here are some profiles of Jones to indicate notability: Charleston Daily Mail, Beckley Register Herald, Charleston Gazette, Journal News. In addition to profiles, here is the Associated Press discussing his NBA draft prospects, here Wheeling Intelligencer is his high school All-America and New York Mr. Basketball. as does this Rivals.com link. I think these articles clearly indicate his notability and meeting WP:GNG. matt91486 (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This of course doesn't include relatively significant coverage of him in several ESPN game write-ups from his college career. matt91486 (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see how he does tomorrow against Duke. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to independent referencing available - although they do need to be added to the article itself. Miyagawa (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Martin[edit]

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

Subject's notability is not clearly established. There doesn't seem to be much coverage on him apart from contemporary news reports, which suggests that this may fall under BLP1E. His role as author may contribute to notability, but apart from this Sunday Mirror article, which refers to the book as "best-selling", I couldn't find any significant coverage in independent sources. Paul_012 ^(talk) 19:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the quoted book was written by him, so may not give the entire circumstances of his conviction.Red Hurley (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If kept should be renamed to "imprisonment of", "Colin Martin case", etc. Spent eight years in prison for a crime he maintains he did not commit. (Source) Blamed for the murder of a New Zealand ship captain in 1997. (Source) "Dozens of Irish supporters and relatives have campaigned for the release of Mr Martin, who spent two years in leg irons and contracted tuberculosis while in Chonburi prison [...] visited by a number of Irish people and helped by the Commission for Irish Prisoners Overseas". (Source). --candle•wicke 06:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book is also mentioned here and here. --candle•wicke 06:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first mention you provided of the book is only in passing, and the second by the publisher, so neither contribute to establishing the book's notability. As for the event itself, I'm not sure whether the coverage is significant enough, or if WP:NOT#NEWS should apply. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 06:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 01:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still ~~delete~~ as lots of people write books and lots of people are wrongfully convicted. I am sorry for his trouble but he is not notable.Red Hurley (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: struck duplicate 'delete vote'. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have read the book. ~~Apart from that~~ And, I believe that the article is notable as a biography, at least.

And am somewhat doubtful about the validity, about the following comments:

"so may not give the entire circumstances of his conviction.Red Hurley" : Nothing on wikipedia, gives the entire circumstances about anything, is my claim.

"Spent eight years in prison for a crime he maintains he did not commit." : The wikipedia article does not state "he maintains he did not commit", and I can not recall the book saying that. (Yes, there was a fight. And yes, he does not remember exactly .... And yes his opponent disappeared into the dark, wilderness after some fighting.). A major issue in the book, is that he should not have been convicted by Thai law. One reason was that there were no witnesses who showed up at the trial.

--Hyllevare (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I understand your argument. Having read the book, what exactly is it that you think makes the subject notable? And when you say biography, are you referring to the biographical book or a biographical Wikipedia article about the person? --Paul_012 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still ~~Delete~~ - it's not biography, it's autobiography, and see Wikipedia:Autobiography for the natural concerns. You say "Nothing on wikipedia, gives the entire circumstances about anything, is my claim." True, but it has to be notable as well, and this one ain't.Red Hurley (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above has already suggested deletion before the 1st relist. Only one vote per user counts. --JForget 00:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dragon Apparel[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP; I can't find any independent secondary sources at all. Prod contested after the fact with only the rationale "Accurate information". —Korath (Talk) 21:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curious How can it be a successful worldwide company, without any Google news results? Searching for the name it is also known as, according to the article, RDS Skate Supply finds at least some mention of its existence. [34] Exactly how big is this company? Dream Focus 04:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the places they state carry their clothing, seem notable? [35] I don't recognize any major retailers, so its just a few small shops in malls perhaps. Dream Focus 04:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are independent skateboarding, surf, or X-treme! sports shops. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosha Yacht Club[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Non-notable yacht club, fails WP:CLUB and WP:GNG. Existing references are all self-references to club's website. Ghits show no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of references in Books and newspapers. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please cite some. – ukexpat (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; ads the Colonel, sorry. I found zero news Ghits, and what's left online is primarily Facebook, local directories, mirror sites, and travel/touriasm sites. It may be notable locally, hence the sheer number of Ghits, but not ntationally. There was one lawsuit where the club was a defendant, but that was dismissed and has little precedential value. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added some references. Cleaned up some of the promotional language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinmontano (talk • contribs) 19:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Sail magazine article counts - the others are self references or directory-type listings. Notability requires non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources; one source isn't sufficient. – ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. User:Edwinmontano should also mention his conflict of interest here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the convincing analysis of the sources undertaken by ukexpat and Bearian. The sources fall well below the standard required for a reliable article, namely significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per ukexpat and Bearian --Nuujinn (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balance Game (1980s)[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2007 with no improvement forthcoming. Growing precedent per AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bump (pricing game), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On the Spot (pricing game), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shower Game and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telephone Game that pricing games are not individually notable and can't possibly support a whole article — furthermore, there are absolutely no sources to be found anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Hardly notable and already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A trivial part of the show. Szzuk (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pmplus+[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. The only given source is in a narrow-interest trade magazine, and I have been unable to find any other coverage. Haakon (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This is my first article and I'm sorry for the many mistakes i made. The Software is notable, because it is a widespread software in small and middle-sized companies (Like in my company). But you are right, the documentation in the web is rare. So, I am looking for more references now and i'm going to correct the text to a neutral point of view. Because i copied much parts from the companies website, it indeed sounds like an advertisement.

Danielhegglin (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is notable? When it's sold to a few or a couple of companies? No. It must be either internationally known, or of considerable local impact. Nageh (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable and well under the radar. Szzuk (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. No prejudice to a speedy renomination. Insufficient participation from established editors to determine consensus, and I'm not inclined to relist this trainwreck. Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Software Movement of India[edit]

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

Not sure if this org will pass WP:N. No WP:RS available except for the report by Hindu which basically covered a conference conducted by the organisation.Looks like propoganda material written with WP:COI. Srikanth (Logic) 17:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is based authentic data, please suggest methods of improvement ie., how to ensure that it is not "propoganda material". Vikram Vincent 04:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentvikram (talk • contribs)

Contributer connected with the subject !?

I have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the subject or the Movement described in the article.
I have absolutely no connection whatsoever with any of the personalities described in the article. I had not even heard of the names mentioned in the article. I could understand who they are only after getting to know of their profiles.
My only interest in the subject was my fascination for the concept of Free Software.
Many people, including myself, consider The Hindu as a respected, reliable national newspaper reporting authentic news. I could not get any other third party references regarding the subject.
I believe that, despite the controversies surrounding the formation of the FSMI, which has been faithfully recorded in the article by somebody (not me), the Free Software Movement of India is a new significant addition to the growing number of organisations and movements trying to spread the idea of free software.
Further, the sheer fact that the subject of the article attracted so much of controversy and discussion in the public sphere within a few days of its formation is itself reason and justification for the notability of the subject and its inclusion in Wikipedia. The article is obviously and clearly written with a neutral point of view. If anybody feels otherwise, he/she is free to edit and modify the article appropriately. Deletion of the article is not the answer to the problem.
I strongly urge that the article be not deleted. If it is eventually deleted it will be a huge paradox on the basic tenets of Wikipedia, one of the staunchest supporters of free knowledge and free society. This is like a self-proclaimed champion of freedom blocking somebody the freedom to talk about an organisation formed with the declared objective of spreading the concept of freedom.

Thanks.Krishnachandranvn (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Srikanth (Logic) 17:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Srikanth (Logic) 17:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That the author has close connection with the organisation is not a rightful reason to delete the article. Wikipedia is a forum to gather all the world's information. The existence of "Free Software Movement of India" is a fact. It should be documented. If it isn't presented in a neutral point of view or not in an encyclopaedic style, feel free to change it, for that exactly is the spirit of Wikipedia. But facts can't be deleted.

--n@vneet 15:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_Wikipedia,_X_is_an_Article,_not_Evil clearly states that anyone is free to edit and there are no iffs. The objection is invalid. Vincent (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I guess the following are reliable and neutral secondary sources of information. Whats the motivation for deletion. I find the entry in accordance to these newspaper reports. I request the tag author to point of specific anomalies what he/she thinks is not in accordance with neutral sources of information.

Deccan Herald : A independent newspaper of repute in Bangalore

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/59304/making-sense-unjust-world.html

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/58966/free-software-movement-gaining-ground.html

The Hindu : Is also reputed newspaper

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/17/stories/2010031751130200.htm

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/19/stories/2010031961140300.htm

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/20/stories/2010032064330300.htm

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/21/stories/2010032154350500.htm

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/cities/Bangalore/article245413.ece

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/article261275.ece

web paper:

http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/events/show/2260-a-run

http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/events/show/2210-national-conference

http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/articles/view/689-richard-stallman-btm-layout

this is of course a blog : http://ideasareimmortal.blogspot.com/2010/03/national-conference-on-free-software.html

http://ideasareimmortal.blogspot.com/2010/03/nc2010-day-2-and-free-software-movement.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.163.216.217 (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"In the past, Richard Stallman has approved of the creation of organisations parallel to FSFI[17]. FSFI and organizations part of FSMI such as FSMK have worked together on many aspects together.[18] Dr. Nagarjuna, Chairman of FSFI Board of Directors[19], was unable to participate in the conference due to certain commitments[20]."

Though the above are facts and are correlated with secondary sources. This can be considered reporting mailing list reference in wiki articles. Hence can be dropped otherwise I find the article to be in accordance to secondary source of information

some more search in kannada space. Prajavani is a newspaper of repute and smapada has beeb around as well

http://avadhi.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/%E0%B2%95%E0%B2%A8%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%A8%E0%B2%A1-%E0%B2%B2%E0%B2%BF%E0%B2%A8%E0%B2%95%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%B8%E0%B3%8D-%E0%B2%A4%E0%B2%82%E0%B2%A4%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%B0%E0%B2%BE%E0%B2%82%E0%B2%B6-%E0%B2%AC/

http://www.prajavani.net/Content/Mar252010/netmail20100324176349.ಅಸ್ಪ್

http://sampada.net/article/೨೪೩೯೪

http://mandyamultimedia.com/news040310.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.36.94 (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IP has shown enough coverage in Reliable secondary sources to warrant an article (interesting to note that same journalist from The Hindu who covers the wikipedia bangalore meetups has covered the event. So they have sent the tech correspondent and given note to it). Also there is bound to be more coverage in Malayalam vernacular media, as the Government of Kerala supports and sponsors the FSM (no windows in Govt PCs in Kerala. They run on linux). If the tone of the article sounds promotional it is a content issue. Can be discussed and changed in the article talk page.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: SodaBottle, On another note, with all due respect to journalist folks, tech correspondents in India have got a lot to catch up and i have been very sad with the level of awareness they have and sometimes/more often the entire article come up through written piece given to them for editing.(atleast few articles about WP:MBL i can vouch for). So it can equally be considered as promotional material. After attending quite a few tech / open culture events, I find 95% of reports(barring few instances) come up with atleast one errata / misinformation and actually makes me wonder how credible are Indian newspapers in general if this is the quality of reporting. By the way, GoK supporting Free Software is a different thing altogether and they do not have link with the subject AFAIK.And all my observations above are for English media,needless to say about vernacular media i guess.(I may be wrong on this one) Srikanth (Logic) 18:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find any genuine reason to delete the article. Even supposing that the contributor is closely attached to the article (which apparently is not the case), that is not ground enough to delete the article. That would only warrant a neutral point of view. It seems that original champion of freedom, Mr.Srikanth is associated with some FOSS movements. Does the deletion have something to do with it? -- praveen chandandrahas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandrahas9 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't indulge in personal attacks. keep the discussion to the article's merits.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry for crossing the line. But I thought the the tag about the contributor being closely connected with the subject warranted some supporting evidence, without which, I am afraid, the tag itself may be treated as a personal attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandrahas9 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the tag itself constitutes ad hominem, it is still advised not to indulge in personal attacks. The OP who tagged the article as Articles_for_deletion may be taken to task if this is the case. Vikram Vincent 16:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Vincentvikram

I still do not understand why the tag on the author being closely related to the subject has not been removed. The claim has not been substantiated. If there is a valid reason why it is still tagged, please post it in the discussion.--Praveen Chandrahas (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some more neutral sources which have picked up the story. they

http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2010032202035NWCY

http://southasia.oneworld.net/ictsfordevelopment/national-free-software-coalition-formed-in-india

http://cacm.acm.org/news/80552-national-free-software-coalition-formed-in-india/fulltext

http://www.erodov.com/forums/national-free-software-coalition-formed/31580.html

http://www.in.com/news/business/national-free-software-coalition-formed-13242829-89a0cb5126f49af766fb9cfdf256f6ee4481df93-rhp.html

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/19/Free_software_movement_gaining_ground

participating organizations in fsmi also referred to be following sources

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Freeing_the_Mind:_Free_Software_and_the_end_of_proprietary_culture

http://www.thehindu.com/edu/2009/08/03/stories/2009080351320300.htm

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/26913/free-software-suited-ui-card.html

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=swecha

http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20100307/1459701.html

http://osindia.blogspot.com/2008/01/science-commons-open-source-drug.html

http://osindia.blogspot.com/2009/04/computer-programme-per-se-conundrum.html

http://www.fossmeet.in/node/36

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india-to-submit-ipr-report-to-us-trade-representative/387786/

http://www.itforchange.net/component/content/232.html?task=view

requesting admin who posted proposed deletion to give specifics on "WP:N. No WP:RS available except for the report by Hindu".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.191.231 (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:N, the article satisfies "significant coverage", "reliable" and "sources". Also it is not "self-publicity, etc..", though there is scope for improvement. Thus, the deletion of a genuine article is unwarranted. Vikram Vincent 05:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentvikram (talk • contribs)

As per WP:RS, high quality, mainstream news organisations are acceptable and considered reliable. News papers such as 'The Hindu', 'Deccan Herald' 'Prajavani' satisfy this clause. Organisations such as ACM and other independent organisations have also reported about FSMI formation. I request that the deletion request be dismissed.--Vikram Vincent 05:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Vincentvikram

Comment I still doubt the WP:N though it has been covered by Sources. But most of the links above cover the 2 day Conference / "Formation of alliance" and few about the sister organisations but not the main subject about which very little is present in the article.IMHO Even the controversy is not notable beyond the mailboxes of mailing list. I had tagged WP:COI when i saw the controversy section was almost written to present a POV even though its partially WP:NPOV. I came across the article initially when i saw the article listed on Template:FOSS and hence felt it used for promotional purpose. I would be glad if people commented on my basis of observation instead of making personal remarks. I wish to mention that i have nothing against any organisation or no Ad hominem aginst anyone (I dont know anyone mentioned in the group but for sharing a frame with User:Vincentvikram on one of the WP:MBL ) . PS: Please maintain readability while commenting. Thanks. Srikanth (Logic) 18:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One article in one newspaper doesn't make a case for an article on a newfangled "movement". I can't see why so much links are dished out here although they don't speak of this organisation. The Hindu is a pro-CPI(M) newspaper which has a tendency of giving undue importance to CPI(M) and its interests. Why I mention CPI(M)is that there was a story in the Malayalam local press that the party caused a split in the Free Software movement in India with the formation of this splinter group. I have read some Malayalam blog posts made by the office bearers of this organisation which acknowledges CPI(M's active participation in the programme while no other political party is mentioned. If this newborn (if not stillborn) thing craves for a WP article on them, they can wait until they make some news. As of now they are just a storm in the teacup. 117.204.88.101 (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section sprang up due to false reporting in the Mathrubhumi newspaper. You may read the rejoinder here http://www.nc2010.fsmk.org/content/rejoinder-mathrubumis-fabricated-report Also do go through the conference website. There is no reference to any political party. We do not endorse any political party although FSMI members are free to support any. Please don't misguide people by giving a wrong count of the number of newspapers reporting about the conference and FSMI's formation. Vikram Vincent 15:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)User:Vincentvikram

I have removed the controversy section as that seems to be a bone of contention. That section arose due to the report that was published in the particular newspaper. Please look at the ACM link above which has specifically quoted the formation of FSMI from The Hindu. The article on FSMI was created as soon as FSMI was formed. I think that the sources quoted in this context are reasonable. Wishes. Vikram Vincent 09:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Vincentvikram

Comment

"I still doubt the WP:N though it has been covered by Sources. But most of the links above cover the 2 day Conference / "Formation of alliance" and few about the sister organisations but not the main subject about which very little is present in the article."

An organization with the above name has been formed in the conference. Many of the organizations which formed it are registered organizations as per their website. Fact is sacred in reporting . Hence why not record it.

"IMHO Even the controversy is not notable beyond the mailboxes of mailing list."

Mathrubumi news item is a prominent one [ 5 column ]. How can we say its only mailing list? yes its a newly formed organization. But do we have norms in WP to say that newly formed organizations cant be recorded. Admins can alter content if need be. But I dont know if its a case for deletion , as many of the sister organization which have formed this network have been in existence and are real. There also has been multiple news items in Hindu, Madhyamam and Mathrubumi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.163.191.93 (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple news items in Hindu, Madhyamam and Mathrubumi" Really? Give me the link please. 117.204.83.177 (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please go through the links already provided above. They provide links to the "multiple" news items in The Hindu, which includes the coverage of run-up events to the national conference. The above request for links sounds satirical. Please avoid using histrionics like "Really?".--Praveen Chandrahas (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mathrubhumi.com/online/malayalam/news/story/221531/2010-03-22/kerala

.but if such a organisation doesnt exist..why controversy over it and a rejoinder

Maadhyamam,leading malayalam daily;having a Bangalore edition too reported on ncfs 2010

Madhyamam report

so its defintiely not mailing list - storm in tea cup and has been reported , so dont know if its a valid case for deletion.

Hindu reports formation of organization ; madhyamam and mathrubumi raises a controversy. the conference website published rejoinder. fsf-i etc have not published a statement on this. google search on organization involved shows them to be registered organization and real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.163.185.117 (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a mess, unreadable and incomprehensible. And some people think they can back their claims with lies in the muddied water. One article in Madhyamam (only one link in this whole page to Madhyamam website) which says a conference ended and lists office bearers, another in Mathrubhumi which the votaries of the new org say is "farbricated" news. Neither prove enough notability to pass Wikipedia norms on the notability of an organisation. 117.204.83.175 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use civil language and stick to the scope of this discussion. Vikram Vincent 07:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Vincentvikram

The very first link goes to the org's own forum! That clinches the notability question indeed. 117.204.83.175 (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, how many news reports are required to prove that a new organisation was created? In our opinion 1 or 2 is sufficient. We have provided much more than that. Also feel free to create a login and make the presented arguments more readable and comprehensible. Vikram Vincent 07:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Vincentvikram

Use civil language and stick to the point.

The above commentator is harbouring some strange notion of civility, apparently. However, his use of 'we' spills the beans that he is a part of a tag team who edits tendentiously. With such a tag team out there and hardly anybody else there is no scope for any meaningful discussion. The org can certainly wait to have a WP article. --117.207.145.30 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post-relist Discussion

No edit to the article in the last few days. The contributors vociferous for its keep seem to be smugly done with it. No concerns answered. Use of circular logic and fictitious civility issues dominated the discussion. The topic fails to interest regular editors. Most importantly nobody still knows if the organisation was a stillbirth or nonstarter. Let the organisation be known first and let the article come when it is due. -117.204.84.130 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The points have already been clearly stated. The notability is established by the following:

1. http://fsmi.in/

2. http://southasia.oneworld.net/ictsfordevelopment/national-free-software-coalition-formed-in-india

3. http://www.in.com/news/business/national-free-software-coalition-formed-13242829-89a0cb5126f49af766fb9cfdf256f6ee4481df93-rhp.html

4. http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2010032202035NWCY

5. http://www.nc2010.fsmk.org/content/free-software-movement-has-arrived-national-scene

6. http://cacm.acm.org/news/80552-national-free-software-coalition-formed-in-india/fulltext

7. http://www.erodov.com/forums/national-free-software-coalition-formed/31580.html

8. http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/22/stories/2010032263622000.htm

9. http://ideasareimmortal.blogspot.com/2010/03/national-conference-on-free-software.html

10.http://ideasareimmortal.blogspot.com/2010/03/nc2010-day-2-and-free-software-movement.html

Vikram Vincent 08:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Vincentvikram

One prominent contention raised in the previous discussion is that the post is promotional. It appears that the person who raised the contention is confused with what is promotional and what is informational. For instance, take a look at Free Software Foundation page in wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation. It is an informational post. Going by the flawed logic, FSF page will also come in the category of promotional post and hence will be fit for deletion. So it will be good if the person who raised the allegation present crisp-clear arguments as to how he differentiates FSMI post as promotional and FSF post as non-promotional.

Another allegation is that the "news of formation of FSMI was not notable". This is a clear case of misinterpreting Wikipedia policy with malicious intent. Notability comes into picture when a bogus organisation tries to appear as an authentic one. Is "the formation of FSMI" a bogus news? Formation of FSMI as an umbrella organisation with active organisations such as DAKF, FSMK, Swetcha, knowledge Commons, FSFTN, FSMWB etc. is a fact, which can be easily verified from media reports as well as from the well known persons and organisations involved. (references of people, organisations involved are cited, and are verifiable). The formation of FSMI was subject of significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. Media houses such as The Hindu, Deshabhimani, Madhyamam, Mathrubhumi etc. are reliable, and independent of the subject. Is he telling that the formation of FSMI as cited in the above newspapers as bogus? If he has a single evidence that the formation of FSMI is bogus, then kindly present it. Is not these many newspaper reports enough for notability? Scope of FSMI is national in scale, and the post is based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - which suffices notability criteria.

I have a contention with the comment that "Let the organisation be known first and let the article come when it is due". For example, Baba Ramdev recently formed Bharat Swabhiman Campaign and political party, and the wiki post on Baba Ramdev should have that information and it does have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Ramdev). Formation of political party by Baba Ramdev is an information to share with, one cannot say that the information should come in wiki only after Ramdev's party wins elections or something like that.

The peculiarity of this whole discussion is that the person who had raised the contentions has not substantiated any of his allegations with concrete-reliable-evidences to prove his theory of "bogus news of FSMI formation". Look at the changing colour of allegations. When one allegation does not hold water, another one manufactured, instead of providing verifiable proofs to the former.

Hence please accept the coverage the formation of FSMI got in mainstream news sources as the evidence and reject all fake allegations contrary to it. There has not been a single report in any media which refutes the report of FSMI formation as carried out by The Hindu, Deshabhimani etc. Hence the allegations are malicious and is just a figment of imagination of the person who raised it.

Roopeshpraj —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

notability

some of it is repeat information - but recording indian language newspapers which have written about formation of fsmi, the english sources have been given already These are direct references to the formation of the organisation

1) Prajavani

http://www.prajavani.net/Content/Mar252010/netmail20100324176349.asp

2) Madhyamam_Daily

http://www.madhyamamonline.com/story/%E0%B4%A6%E0%B5%87%E0%B4%B6%E0%B5%80%E0%B4%AF-%E0%B4%B8%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B5%E0%B4%A4%E0%B4%A8%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B0-%E0%B4%B8%E0%B5%8B%E0%B4%AB%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B1%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B1%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B5%E0%B5%86%E0%B4%AF%E0%B4%B0%E0%B5%8D%E2%80%8D-%E0%B4%B8%E0%B4%AE%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%AE%E0%B5%87%E0%B4%B3%E0%B4%A8%E0%B4%82-%E0%B4%B8%E0%B4%AE%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%AA%E0%B4%BF%E0%B4%9A%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%9A%E0%B5%81

3) Mathrubhumi

The rejoinder of the President of fsmi.in has been published as well [ these are both 4 column and 5 column news ]

http://www.mathrubhumi.com/online/malayalam/news/story/221531/2010-03-22/kerala

Events

http://www.nc2010.fsmk.org/LDW/ - " Prof. Gopinath, IISc, Vice President, FSMI" giving a talk in an event organised by FSMK a member organisation of FSMI

Contributer connected with the subject !?

Krishnachandranvn (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Post has clearly shown that he as the originator has no connection.

Neutral opinion in the above discussion

<quote> Keep - IP has shown enough coverage in Reliable secondary sources to warrant an article (interesting to note that same journalist from The Hindu who covers the wikipedia bangalore meetups has covered the event. So they have sent the tech correspondent and given note to it). Also there is bound to be more coverage in Malayalam vernacular media, as the Government of Kerala supports and sponsors the FSM (no windows in Govt PCs in Kerala. They run on linux). If the tone of the article sounds promotional it is a content issue. Can be discussed and changed in the article talk page.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep :

1) In summary my point is that its definitely not case for deletion.

2) Will look very biased if deleted.

3) Content can be edited to say 'newly formed coalition / organisation ' with year of formation and details

4) Also contributors have shown that there are many statelevel organisation which have cometogether to form this coalition and there have been valid secondary references for the same. This is notable as well

5) I also request that contributors to this discussion avoid contributions like 'still born/non starter/oh its cluttered/really - can you show me/' [ it shows that X is straining to come up with an argument , X doesn't like Y has nothing to do with wikipedia ].

6) The contention is that whether newly formed organizations can be reported or is somebody reporting this in a biased manner. It depends on the importance and interest. I see Krishnachandranvn adding content spontaneously and hence it shows that there is interest in this topic and hence valid.

7) The older organisations have not attempted wikipedia entries, shows they are not self-promoting.

8) However Krishnachandranvn spontaneosly added an entry spontaneously for fsmi and hence it seems valid to keep.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Goli-soda (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before anything, a check on the various SPAs might be in order. -117.204.82.26 (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnachandranvn - not SPA - is the originator of article.

Sodabottle - not SPA and gave the following comment

"IP has shown enough coverage in Reliable secondary sources to warrant an article (interesting to note that same journalist from The Hindu who covers the wikipedia bangalore meetups has covered the event. So they have sent the tech correspondent and given note to it). Also there is bound to be more coverage in Malayalam vernacular media, as the Government of Kerala supports and sponsors the FSM (no windows in Govt PCs in Kerala. They run on linux). If the tone of the article sounds promotional it is a content issue. Can be discussed and changed in the article talk page" - Sodabottle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goli-soda ( • contribs) 15:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Contacted Wikipedian who put up the AFD notice and asked for constructive feedback http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Logicwiki#Regarding_FSMI User_talk:Logicwiki yet to respond. Please remove AFD notice. Vikram Vincent 07:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Vincentvikram[reply]

There has also been no substantiation to the claim that a contributor has close connection with the subject. Please remove the tag corresponding to that issue as well. The tag looks malicious without proper substantiation. Why is the person who put the tag not responding?--Praveen Chandrahas (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Interactive Patient Care[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The first two references are quotes from the executive director - not coverage of the organisation. The third reference comes up as an empty page and the 4th is to the organisations own webpage. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, the third article pulls up for me, so I'm unsure why you said it goes to an empty page. I also disagree that this article should be deleted. The concept of interactive patient care is relatively new, and obviously this institute would have limited coverage. I selected the articles to backup the statements made, and to show that this non-profit organization is being used by journalists as a source for information on the subject. I may be incorrect, but this constitutes 'newsworthy.' In response to this challenge, I am also monitoring the organization via Google News and other means in order to add content as this field develops. This article is written in a neutral tone, and was not created for promotional means. I find this subject interesting, and am in the process of writing a larger article on the subject of interactive patient care. I also created this as a stub and not as a complete article, due to the fact that the information is limited. lokipro (lokipro) 14:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokipro (talk) • (contribs)
- It doesn't matter whether you (or I) think that it is "newsworthy". It matters whether you can produce a 100% "independent" reliable source that is not just the local newspaper (because local newspapers tend to run a little bit of everything that happens in their backyards) or a re-hashed press release (which isn't independent, even if the publisher pretends that it's their own work, rather than labeling it "press release"). The standard rules are here, if you want to learn more about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 09:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 09:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added new sources into the article. There is enough coverage in reliable, secondary sources in order to establish notability. Silver seren^C 09:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources to establish notability. The dump of external links added to the article consists of quoting the executive director, or are press releases or press release re-hashes. I don't see that any of the original references, nor the addition of external links constitutes significant coverage, and more importantly, consists of reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Institute for Interactive Patient Care launched in US" - BJHC

"Institute for Interactive Patient Care Launched". 2009-05-20. Retrieved 2010-03-21.

These two sources, which are in the article, are neither press releases, nor quotes of the director. The only similar wording between them is the two principal functions, which could be from a press release, i'm not sure, but that doesn't invalidate the rest of the sources. Silver seren^C 19:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1692320/institute_for_interactive_patient_care_launched/index.html is from PRNewswire. PRNewswire carries nothing but press releases: that's its function.—Kww(talk) 20:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not the topic of any sources that establish notability. Novangelis (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with Whpq's statement. also no substantial coverage. [36]. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nonprofit organizations aren't going to get a lot of press coverage, obviously. This organization seems notable based on its approach to health care, that making it unique/notable. Dream Focus 14:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Seems notable" isn't one of the criteria for establishing notability. Notability requires verifiable evidence. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. We don't relax notability rules for non profit orgs. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being non-profit doesn't prevent coverage, as I'm sure the American Cancer Society, Goodwill, and the Roman Catholic Church will attest. Insufficient coverage in independent sources.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the available coverage is insufficient. — Rankiri (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery Game[edit]

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

AfDs related to discussion for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bump (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/On the Spot (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/Shower Game

Articles for deletion/Telephone Game

Entirely unsourced, non-notable pricing game that appeared on The Price is Right 20 years ago for a period of only eight months. Adequately covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Google search results in only YouTube links and fansites. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sottolacqua (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Absolutely no chance of ever being expanded beyond an unsourced stub. There is also the ever-growing precedent that pricing games are not notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of independent notability, is covered at List of The Price Is Right pricing games.--Beloved Freak 18:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Patrick Dwyer[edit]

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

Nothing against this person or their contributions but this appears to be a case of WP:BIO1E even with citations to significant coverage in reliable sources RadioFan (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 02:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 02:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources as EL's and formatted the references. Really, it's two events, not one, the photo and then his death. Furthermore, the last two EL's I added talk about his PTSD, not either of the two events. Silver seren^C 02:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in life and in death. Lord Jimbo (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, so BIO1E doen't even apply. Merely being the subject of a photograph doesn't assert notability, especially one with only modest noteriety at best. What little prose there is ins't partucularly NPOV either, but that would be an easy fix. I'm not sure I buy that a few passing mentions as an example of PTSD would assert notability either... I could see the refs being transferred to that article though. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is he non-notable? He has stories about him that span five years of coverage. It is obviously outside of BLP1E and the articles themselves are almost entirely about him. That seems to scream notability to me. Silver seren^C 05:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mere coverage doesn't equate notability. I have PTSD, but I don't rate an article. As a military person, there is nothing that distinguishes him past the unfortunate thousands of others who have suffered and ended thier own lives. Perhaps there is some notability as an example of a medical/mental disorder, but not enough to rate an entire biography. And who said anything about BLP? You have to be living to qualify for that. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant BIO1E. What distinguishes him beyond those others is that he is the face of the Iraq war and also that he killed himself in a rather dramatic way. Those two, combined with the information about his PTSD, should be enough to establish notability. Silver seren^C 17:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd be suprised just how many servicemembers have done one, the other, or both. His story is just not any more different or unique to put him above that of his peers that have had the same tragic end. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a very sad story but unfortunately I do not see how it is more notable than any other veteran suffering from service-related injuries/illnesses. I salute this young man's sacrifice, but I do not believe that our current policies (WP:GNG and WP:MILPEOPLE) are satisfied in this case. A mention of the subject in a related article, however, might be appropriate so long as it did not breach WP:UNDUE. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has articles that are entirely about him, how does that not meet coverage? Silver seren^C 05:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, media coverage doesn't equate to notability. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, yes it does. WP:MILPEOPLE still says "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." This has been established, easily. As for WP:GNG, the sources are "significant coverage", they are "reliable", they are "secondary sources", they are "independent of the subject", and we are making the "presumption" right now. He meets the criteria for notability because he is the main subject of multiple, non-trivial, major news sources. That is clearly enough to establish notability. Silver seren^C 17:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a requirement, not a correlation, for notability. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BIO and WP:GNG are general guidelines. We should look to more specific guidelines such as WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:PROF and in this case, WP:MILPEOPLE where available. They are there for a reason.--RadioFan (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, as I said just above, he still meets the general guideline for WP:MILPEOPLE. Besides, you should only be using that if the coverage of him was primarily for his feats as a military officer, which they are not. He should be assessed according to WP:BIO, not from a military standard. Silver seren^C 19:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make much sense to me. If he wasn't military, nobody would be able to make an even slightly plausible argument to notability. It's that aspect of his suicide that is making this a divided discussion. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to community gardening. Feel free to merge content from page history. Tim Song (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of community gardens[edit]

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

Delete. This page has existed as a list of US only community gardens since 2007. If it were to be expanded to reflect the global nature of the title it would have 1000s of entries. It should be deleted since WP is not a directory. Notable community gardens should have their own articles and listed at the community gardening page. There also appears to be little interest in maintaining the page and it is an orphan. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~. Merge anything appropriate, and redirect to community gardening. This list is currently indiscriminate. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expand If the objection is that it is US-only, then the things to do is to expand it. There's a problem here we have no real way of handling: Very few such gardens will merit complete articles, and at present we would normally incorporate some mention of them in the article on the community. We should have some way of bringing the material together. Perhaps a combination article of subp-notable things might be a good way to do it, but in only a few cases to we typically accept such articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for deletion is that Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, Rename to List of community gardens in the US. If someone wants to make a global list, this can be an ((main))'d off list on that one. Would also be more balanced with this at some other name. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a split proposal on the community gardening page to split out a Community gardening in the United States article. This proposed page could list notable community gardens (including the ones that have articles of course) rather than being a comp. I would oppose creating a List of community gardens in the US since it would still be a directory. They also won't be maintained if there is no interest from the WP community. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many community gardens are notable and could probably have articles. This would qualify this page per WP:L. This needs to be wikified. Dew Kane (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that "some" community gardens are notable not "many". There are some articles on community gardens so obviously theose ones are notable. They can be listed in the community gardening page. From my experience with lists I would say a list of community gardens would be a random, poorly maintained list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete community gardens, if not larger than say a city block, are essentially less notable than elementary schools, which dont get entries unless notable for some other reason. the list of notable community gardens will remain small, this list will only attract nonnotable additions. a category and a handful of articles on them is enough.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no more need for a list of community gardens than farm coffee shops or newsagents. Any of these which are truly notable can be linked from the main article, the volume of them shouldn't prove overwhelming. Someone another 03:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The list is currently too scrappy and does not contain many entries for gardens which have their own articles. But such notable gardens do exist; for example, see White House Vegetable Garden. See also the coverage of the general topic at the Encyclopedia of Community. This indicates that such gardens are known by many names, being the result of numerous different initiatives — moral gardens, war gardens, counter-culture gardens, etc. For now, it seems best to merge the list back into Community garden and let the notable examples accumulate there. As and when the list there becomes too large, it can be spun off into this separate appendix again. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am warming to the idea of a redir rather than deletion. A merge however, based on the current content will result in systemic bias of the community gardening page (I assume you want it merged there). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meisei[edit]

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

Better suited for wiktionary. armagebedar (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about the relationship between this article and Face (sociological concept). Depending on what the article creator has in mind and what sort of sources she/he has on hand, this may be an appropriate article. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KEEP: Article claims to be about the idea, rather than the word, and claims notability. However the only reference is to a dictionary. Could go either way, but it's still a stub, so should be given chance.BigBodBad (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happier with a Keep if the article creator had done any editing on it since adding the under construction template on it, instead of going off and editing other articles -- so we had a better idea of what the intention is/was. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The intention of any article is defined by its introduction, and seems to be defined encyclopedically in fact.BigBodBad (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dictionary definition. --DAJF (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be strictly accurate it's not a dictionary definition because it defines Meisei as an idea, rather than 'Meisei is a term that means...'.BigBodBad (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There isn't an article on ja:, either at ja:名声 or ja:めいせい. —Korath (Talk) 01:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to face (sociological concept), very weakly and without prejudice. "Face" is for better or worse the usual English word for East Asian concepts of social reputation and a complex of cultural norms centered around avoiding public contradiction or embarrassment. That would appear to bring this article's subject within its scope. FWIW, the two See Also's for the school and the author are spelled with different kanji and may be only mere homonyms in romaji. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaiah[edit]

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

Non notable band. DimaG (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2010 (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) 00:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The band does not seem to meet any of the notability guidelines outlined by WP:BAND and there aren't any sources to establish such. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Tim Song (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RedandNater.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested prod (I had to semi-protect it, and didn't feel that it was right for a semi'd article to be deleted to prod); original rationale was "Article is of dubious POV and notability. It is not even close to wiki style." NW (Talk) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When that Prod tag was added by Terrx, the article had recently been majorly vandalized (this is the edit in where the prod tag was added, while the vandalism had not been removed). I have notified Terrx of this, but he doesn't appear to have been on since about a day before I put something on his talk page. The prod tag was not added to the actual article, but a vandalized form of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2010 (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) 00:24, 26 March 2010 (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) 00:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I would normally close this "no consensus" per WP:NPASR but I know that the nominator would rather have this relisted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. Looks like there's at least one dead-tree source. Been through the wringer once already. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Weakly. At some point I presume the board will just die off and then the WP page will be gone, if it survives till then. Szzuk (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.The article appears to be a promotional tool for a small message board. The links (including the dead ones) don't add much credibility to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.23.26 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.I view the board frequently, and the article in no way represents the actual content on the messageboard. The article is basically an attempt at promotion, but any moderator that would look at the board would see that the article is completely inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.221.78.177 (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The board is frequently quoted in main stream media as a source for breaking broadcasting industry news. Opponents of the board have slowly whittled away at the content of the WP page in an effort to get the WP removed. As a resource that is seen as a leader in dissemination of information for an entire industry on a regional basis, I think it warrants being kept. Joe Forkeybolo (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. This is borderline in terms of consensus, but after nearly two and a half weeks, it has not yielded any further discussion. Therefore it is time to close this. The sources provided do not, by themselves, give the subject the indepedent, reliable coverage necessary for meeting the notability guideine for living people. There is only one citation that is not the webpage of a company he has been involved with, which is simply not enough. Generally, this would be "no consensus", but as this is a BLP, and there has been no improvement in the extended duration of this AfD, I have deleted the page. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Demierre[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Only claims to notability are founding a non-notable company, and reception of some very local recognitions. Cannot find any reliable citations. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can check press articles in the web page of the company Press 2006 and also an Audible file, Press 2007 and Press 2008-9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.62.142.193 (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2010 (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) 00:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have formatted the article, along with putting in some EL's. He seems to have a significant amount of coverage among French news sources and I believe he satisfies notability. Silver seren^C 18:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silver. Str8cash (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2010 (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) 00:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I would normally close this as "keep" but since it's a BLP it would be helpful to have another comment or 2 so lets give it a few more days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it with fire - After discussion of the subject with a French Wikipedian, it transpires there is strong suspicion this and it's subsequent brother at fr.wp are self promotional, and that it's admissibility as a notable subject is highly questionable. As a result of this, and reviewing both this and the article at fr.wikipedia, I say delete as possible self promo, and non notable subject. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 00:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is self-promotional, then it should be rewritten so it isn't. That is not a reason for deletion. The sources show that the subject is notable, because there is significant coverage in them. Silver seren^C 00:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the present time, the French Wikipedia has their equivalent of a Speedy Deletion in progress, a DSI, or Demande d'Suppression Immediate on the grounds of non notability and self promotional material -currently 3 votes to 0 in favor of immediate deletion. - now if he's not notable in his own damn country, what makes him notable here? The articles creator both here and at fr.wp is linked to his company, hell it may even be him. This is a major COI and in theory, it should have been accepted for an A7 rather than be put through a fortnight's worth of very slow AFD. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 01:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French Wikipedia version does not have the sources that I included in ours. I have contested your speedy delete tag, as the article just needs to be rewritten, it should not be speedy deleted. Are you saying that the sources I have included in the article are not reliable? If you do not believe they are, then you need to explain directly your reasoning for each one. Silver seren^C 03:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at the article talk page for why I believe it should be deleted. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 04:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have allowed Silver seren some time to attempt to rescue this article, but I don't believe the sources he has found denote any special notability for this person. The press coverage that exists all appears to be of the self-promotional public relations type, the type of articles that companies pay to place in magazines to bolster their images. The awards won by Demierre or Touchmind are the sort of local prizes that chambers of commerce hand out all the time; they are not national-level or industry-level prizes. I have removed the speedy delete however, as I believe Barkingfish's arguments for speedy deletion are incorrect. Whatever the course of decision at the French Wikipedia, this English article should be discussed on its own merits. A credible claim of notability is made, so speedy deletion is not an option. However, those claims of notability do not seem to ring true under investigation, so the article really should be deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dru Money[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable rapper. No news hits. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Bejnar (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find a few hits where the phrase "drug money" was misspelled, but otherwise nothing that amounts to significant coverage, nor anything to meet the other MUSICBIO criteria. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2010 (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) 00:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked GNews, and also a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find any coverage of this musician. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Kenny Rogers discography. There appears to be nothing to merge. Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucille and Other Classics[edit]

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

Budget line compilation on non-notable distributor. No sources found anywhere other than the terse Allmusic review. Not all compilations are notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wondered about it when I first fixed the editing error made by another user on the page (which had resulted in the cover art image becoming orphaned, I've contacted that user regarding the editing mistake but did not follow up on his other edits elsewhere). When I first created the page, I did so because of the AllMusic review but later questions came to mind about the notability of the album itself. I think the review even states that it's a budget-line CD. Thus, I don't think there's any problem if you want to get rid of it; just get rid of the link area in the discography too, and don't forget about the image as I don't need another orphaned image note. =) CycloneGU (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Budget, non-official releases should never have articles.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2010 (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) 00:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kenny Rogers discography - the compilation itself has no notability independent of Rogers himself, but if it's a repackaging of a previously-released compilation, it should also be mentioned there (and there would be no reason to orphan the picture as it can be moved to the appropriate section of the list). It is clear that this title cannot stand alone as an article, but it would be a worthwhile redirect for those who have seen copies of this album.147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Senica[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Didn't wrestle in a top promotion as a wrestler, and no evidence that he really worked for World Wrestling Entertainment in any notable capacity as the article claims. A Google search for his career as a Nascar driver turns up only networking sites. Nikki♥311 03:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 03:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slow Delete It needs some references from different sources as this article is barely reliable. Joker264 (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2010 (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) 00:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable wrestler and the article is not stylized per WP:PW. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Mr. C.C. and there are very little references to his wrestling career and none mention WWE or a lot of the industries it said he worked for.--C23 C23's talk 01:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No consensus to keep, subject requested deletion. Tim Song (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Denner[edit]

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

ticket:2010032510054568 - Borderline notability; subject requests deletion of the article. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. - Philippe 23:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article has been cut down significantly in the run up to this discussion (see [37]) by a user who I assume is the subject. The prior version contained some uncited biographical information but did give some sources which might be useful if it is decided to keep the article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that the subject maintains his own web site, so he doesn't seem to have a problem with being a public figure. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel like he is notable with those sources. I would rather like an explanation from him, per Phil Bridger, as he is still in the limelight with or without this page. And, as far as I can tell, this page is not negative in the slightest. Silver seren^C 17:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

≤ March 2010 John Denner is caught miming to a version of the Eddie Van Halen 'Beat It' solo - as played by UK guitarist Phil Hilborne www.philhilborne.com The offending video had been watched nearly half a million times. YouTube removed the video as it was a clear case of impersonation & copyright violation.

This is the reason why John Denner wants to shut his page down - he has been exposed as being an opportunist and a fraud. ≥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.113.11 (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — 86.140.113.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ah, I see. But then, that gives us even more reason not to delete the article. If he's a fraud, then he's a fraud, we shouldn't cater to him. Silver seren^C 01:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seem notable enough, and apparent reasons for subject wishing deletion do not seem good ones. I have never been all that willing to delete a proper articel at the request of a subject who maintains his own web=page or otherwise self-publicizes, in any case. DES ^(talk) 02:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cited in the article do not seem to meet the Reliable Source test. Neither do any of the allegations about him miming his work - it's all just blogs. If any one has a Reliable Source about that, and is willing to add it to the article, I will change my vote. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New Haven Register, The Courant, and the International Business Times are classified as blogs to you? Perhaps you're mixing up the word blog with newspaper? Silverseren^C 19:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "it's all just blogs" I was referring to the claim that he was caught miming to someone else's music; sorry if I wasn't clear. That claim appears to have no reliable sourcing, but rather to have appeared on one blog and been copied onto other blogs. As far as I am concerned that claim is unverified, asserted here by a SPA and unconfirmed online, and we should not give it any credence or let affect our decision. But as for the references given in the article: the "New Haven Register" link goes to the paper's home page rather than to an article; the International Business Times item is a press release; that leaves the Hartford Courant article, plus the Howard Stern item which appears to be quoting material supplied by the subject. Maybe that's notable enough for you; it's not for me. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are enough to establish notability and the reason the subject has for wanting to be removed is petty and of no concern to Wikipedia. Silver seren^C 19:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Denners miming is not just blogs - YouTube would not have removed the videos if there was not a clear case of copyright violation. That is a fact verifiably with youtube. Also, the person who John Denner was impersonating is a consultant editor for a global guitar magazine (guitar techniques) and the editor and others there will confirm that the miming and taking credit for someone else's work happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.242.180 (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC) — 86.167.242.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Then I look forward to seeing the links (other than blogs) which you will provide. Youtube just says "this video has been removed by the user".[38] The only way I found ANY evidence of this rumor online was to search for the terms "John Denner" and "miming" - and then I found claims clearly all copied from the same source, most likely from a blog called "truth in shredding." Google searching for other combinations, such as "john denner" "beat it" or "john denner" "van halen", did not turn up anything about it being a fake. As I said, I am open to changing my mind if shown the evidence. But do take a look at WP:R about what kinds of sources are considered reliable and what are not. And in the meantime, I will be VERY disappointed in us Wikipedians if we are ready to believe and act on any old internet rumor that anyone posts here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is supposed to be about the existence of this article, rather than its content. I'm still undecided about notability, but agree that we should not be taking into account unsubstantiated rumours when judging such notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete On the fence with this one--there are 2-3 good references, but this strikes me as a some kind of variant of WP:Oneevent--it seems the only reason he's notable is he plays guitar well and has only one hand. Is that enough? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He plays guitar well, yes, that's not one event. The sources are enough in terms of coverage in order to establish notability, regardless for the reason for that notability. Silver seren^C 20:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm not being clear--yes, he does play guitar well, but so does my brother. There are enough articles about him to make him somewhat notable, but is he notable for any other reason than he plays guitar well despite missing a hand? In other word, does he meet WP:MUSIC? And if he had use of two hands, would we be talking about him? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries.

He could possibly meet 12 as well, though i'm not sure how long the Howard Stern Show went for in covering him. Silver seren^C 20:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News coverage, and appearances on notable shows like Howard Stern make him notable. Confirm the identity of the person asking to have the article taken down. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want a Wikipedia article that brings attention towards them and thus helps their career. Dream Focus 06:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Booth[edit]

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

Contested PROD, seems to fail Notability criteria. Rmhermen (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after searching extensively online, I've found nothing reliable about this person. I verified at USATF (of which I'm one of thousands of members) that she's registered for races, see here, but not much else. Having only won one National race, and never competed even for the Olympic tryouts, she badly fails WP:ATHLETE. Actually, my brother Bruce Edward Logan easily beats her in notability, and he's barely notable even though he's been in several Olympic tryouts and was once ranked # 1 in racewalking. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC) P.S., She has never won or placed in the Freihofer women's 5k held annually in Albany, New York, which is considered the premier race for women in the United States, thus her claim of notability fails for that, too. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If this is deleted, the now-redirected duplicate page at Rachel Evjen Booth should also be deleted. Rmhermen (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SEe also Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. Bearian (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2010 (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) 00:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. A very good runner, but more substantial achievements are needed for inclusion in WP. Location (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Admittedly my knowledge of US athletics is very poor but I can't say I've really heard of many of the runs she's done well in. I created an article for a friend of mine and was really wondering if she was notable. She's represented Great Britain at the European Indoor Athletics Championships so is clearly notable in terms of Wiki but I bet virtually no-one has heard of her outside athletics in the UK. This girl it appears hasn't won anything of merit, as far as my limited knowledge goes. Cls14 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Desire[edit]

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

Non-notable album. WP:1S, released on non-notable label, absolutely no sources found. Tagged for notability since June 2008. Suggest deletion and moving Sweet Desire (song) by The Kendalls to this title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2010 (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) 00:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS; notability is not established due to the lack of sources that can be found. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No G News results, fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG CTJF83 chat 05:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://blog.livedoor.jp/geek/