< 24 April	26 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mhiji 22:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zap Zone[edit]

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

There is such thing called Zap Zone but this is a possible test article created by Iam4aFight. Somebody500 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, delete this discussion. Somebody500 (talk) 18:23, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Jackson (Collegiate wrestler and hurdler)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ATH. He competed at a small school in low-level competitions, nowhere near the highest level of college competition much less international caliber. His awards are from the NAIA and NCCAA (National Christian College Athletic Assoication) not NCAA. Papaursa (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the author's name, a clear COI. This could have been a speedy. jmcw (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowhere close to notable. It is also clear COI. Astudent0 (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~abstain if I'm reading it right, this guy is a three time NAIA national champion in wrestling and did pretty well in the hurdles, too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment unless, of course, the COI trumps... which it might...--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, his best finish in the NAIA wrestling championships was 5th in his division. College organizations typically name the top 6-8 in each division as "All-American". The NAIA is typically considered below the NCAA's Division 3. His track finish was 7th out of 13 in the even lower level NCCAA. I don't believe COI is grounds for deletion, but it is cause to look closely. Papaursa (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just drop my position then, I believe you are right but don't have time to verify. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about this subject anyway.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:00, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Seems notable enough, even though there's no article dedicated to the topic. A few sentences here and there add up. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 00:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PRQ[edit]

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

A web hosting company whose only claim to fame is having hosted The Pirate Bay, and being owned by one of the (former?) TPB operators. Fails WP:CORP otherwise, as far as I can tell. Bring on the bad faith accusations and shite. Pcap ping 23:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:44, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Motorsport Calendary[edit]

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

Miss-spelling of a page deleted twice previously as 2010 Motorsport Calendar. Originally deleted as a PROD citing Wikipedia is not a guidebook, then subsequently deleted as a test page posted into article-space. Falcadore (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another example of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - a calendar. It's unsourced from reliable sources. It's too incomplete to be of much use anyhow. Royal broil 00:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. dramatic (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Royalbroil. Cs-wolves (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:43, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Fischer[edit]

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

I do not believe this subject meets the notability standards--not a high-flying job, and no secondary coverage. Dr Aaij (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not appear to meet notability standards. Original article appears to have been an autobiography. OccamzRazor (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer appears to be the only active attorney at Duane Morris to have a biographical article, despite that the firm has around 600 lawyers. He was also the only active attorney to have an article at his former firm of Fish & Richardson, which has over 400 lawyers. Information in his article does not substantiate that he would have any greater standing than any of the other active lawyers at these two firms. An internet search found nothing mentioning him except law firm profiles, which most lawyers in the country have. OccamzRazor (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real assertion of notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:30, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails WP:BAND - notability is clearly not established in WP:RS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Throes of Sanity[edit]

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

Non-notable band lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This talk page is in response to the proposed deletion of page Throes of Sanity. I have reviewed the notability requirements for Wikipedia regarding musical groups and ensembles and believe that Throes of Sanity meets the criteria for inclusion and provides substance to the world community regarding progressive heavy metal bands. Please consider that this type of music is not mainstreme. It is difficult to gain notariety in this sub-culture of music. One only needs to google the band's name to see that they have received substantial notariety in the US, Europe (special mention in Germany), Japan, the Czec Republic and other countries throughout the world. The sources and links provided in the Throes of Sanity page specifically meet the first WP:BAND criteria:

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

After searching Google of the band and reviewing the links in the page, Throes of Sanity has been provided a plethora of online versions of print media recongnition throughout the years. Further, as written in the page, Throes of Sanity received regular rotation on KISW's Metal Shop and was interviewed for a specific segment that lasted more than one-half hour including the specific highlighting of songs from their album, "The Upheaval". KISW is the largest rock radio station in the Seattle area. Therefore, Throes of Sanity meets criteria 12 of WP:BAND criteria:

"12. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network."

Throes of Sanity is also scheduled to go on tour to play the Swordbrothers Festival IX in Andernach, Germany with the other progressive metal bands such as Cloven Hoof, Cage and Paragon, who are similar to Throes of Sanity also have pages on Wikipedia.

Those of us who continue to support progressive heavy metal music really understand the importance that Throes of Sanity plays in this genre of music which is why I included them in Wikipedia. I have made substantial changes to the page to be sure it meets the Wikipedia standards and will also continue to improve the page over time as I am sure other Wiki editors will do if given the chance! Metalmusicscene (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Unfortunately the references are not "non-trivial" in nature and some do not meet the criteria in reliable sources. I do not see any indication the band meets criteria #12. Rotation on and having been interviewed for a segment of a local radio show is not the same as being the "subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network."

It may well be that the group is significant; however, Wikipedia is not based on truth, but rather verifiability. ttonyb (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I respectfully disagree that Throes of Sanity does not meet the criteria enumerated in WP:BAND; specifically sections 1 and 12. I also disagree that the sources cited in the Throes of Sanity article are not reliable sources. What appears to be occurring is the application of a standard for reliable sources that simply does not exist or exists in a different way regarding the genre being described.

First, there are several Google pages containing a plethora of articles specifically discussing the significance of the band. These sources are the critics and listeners of the band. How much more reliable can those sources be? The articles certainly are non trivial "written online versions of print media" which specifically qualifies the band for notability pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines (regarding the non triviality of the print media, please read each article the band has sourced in the Throes of Sanity page (NME.com[1], Progressive World.net[2], Last.fm[3], Forgotten-Scroll[4], Rapid4me.com[5], Metal to Infinity[6] and Metal Melts the Ice[7]) to understand the significance the band has in the heavy metal community. The list in the article is by no means exhaustive but verifieds and demonstrates the significance that Throes of Sanity has in the heavy metal/progressive metal community. The reader of the articles takes away nothing less than Throes of Sanity epidimizes true progressive metal.

Also, as indicated in the article, the band has noteworthy members including former member Pavel Konvalinka who is probably one of the best rock and heavy metal percussionists in the world. The influece the band has had in the heavy metal community is undeniable as reflected in the huge presence on the internet.

The band was specifically featured on KISW's Metal Shop, which is an international radio station when considering the fact they broadcast live on the internet. The band specifically was the subject of and was featured on Metal Shop in which each memeber was interviewed and Metal Shop played 4 songs from the CD. That specifically meets the criteria of WP:BAND 12 as enumerated in Wikipedia. Metalmusicscene (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Let's take this one at a time. First of all there is not a plethora of GHits. There are only 123 Ghits - go to the last page of the search and take a look at the count there, not on the first page. In addition, there are zero GNEWS (news) hits listed on Google. The Google articles are primarily trivial mentions and blog type entries, and yes, I have read the articles. There are a couple of album reviews, but they are about the album, not specifically about the band.

Pavel Konvalinka's membership in the band does not meet any criteria in WP:BAND to support the article, so therefore it is irrelevant to this discussion. Please note that if he was a current member of the band the conclusion would be different.

There is nothing in the article that adequately supports {per Wikipedia guidelines) that the band has had influence in the heavy metal community. Are there articles that support this, have they won significant awards. Have they had national airplay?

The airplay on KISW's Metal Shop is not a broadcast across a national radio or TV network. The internet is not a radio network or TV network. Assumming such would be like saying someone is an international journalist because they have a internet based blog. Sorry, but not even close.

I would suggest instead of trying to justify the article as it stands, you improve the references in the article. That will get you a lot farther in supporting the article. ttonyb (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completely agree with your comment that the article can be improved (like most all articles on Wikipedia) and believe there are numerous reliable sources evidencing Throes of Sanity meets the criteria for notability. I do believe that if given the chance, the Wikipedia community who adores progressive metal (and we are out there) will focus their energy on improving the references in the article over time.

Throes of Sanity definitely has its place in the progressive metal community as indicated in the internet articles. Regarding the 123 Google hits, plethora has been defined on Wiktionary as "an excessive amount or number; an abundance". I believe that the number of hits on Google justifies the use of the term plethora.

Also, there is enough notariety in the Google hits warranting Throes of Sanity on Wikipedia. There is nothing in WP:BAND criteria that provides a specific type of written online version of print media is required to meet the first element of WP:BAND. The issue is notability and it is apparent from the source reviews that Throes of Sanity has notability. The Google articles are not just about the album, and it is nearly impossible to write about an album without writing about the band who wrote the album. I also disagree with your characterization of how Throes of Sanity has influenced the progressive metal community which was driven underground for the most part after the Grunge scene took over in the mid 1990s. Once again, progressive metal/heavy metal/power metal is not mainstreme like hip hop and pop. This should be considered when determining notability for the specific genre.

Regarding the analogy that a major radio station such as KISW in Seattle who broadcasts live over the internet (KISW is owned by Entercom, which is one of the five largest radio broadcasting companies in the United States, with a nationwide portfolio of 110 stations in 23 markets, including San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, Denver, Portland, Sacramento and Kansas City) is comparable to an internet based blog is a little disingenuous. Once again, however, I will focus my engerty on improving the article. --Metalmusicscene (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please follow the format for comments. I should not have to do this for you. Thanks... Again, one at a time. The community has 7 days to improve the article before it would be deleted. As I indicated above, the specific type of support for articles is in reliable sources please read the article and feel free to let me know if you have any questions. You are missing the point about notability, there is "real-world" notability and Wikipedia notability. Meeting "real-world" notability is not criteria for Wikipedia notability. Wikipedia notability is defined for bands in WP:BAND. Again, as I indicated above the group may be significant; however, Wikipedia is not based on truth, but rather verifiability. Without reliable sources the article is not verifiable. Without reliable sources the article cannot meet the criteria in WP:BAND and therefore cannot achieve Wikipedia based notability. You are missing the point with regards to the KISW broadcast, it was not broadcast on the Entercom network, therefore it was not broadcast across a national radio or TV network. It was only broadcast in one market. ttonyb (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry about the formatting. I have read the reliable sources article and do believe that the written online print media for Throes of Sanity by the progressive metal community found in the original article qualify as reliable source material which is verifiable. Please review the Wikipedia articles for Cage, Cloven Hoof and Paragon. Those heavy metal bands are similar to Throes of Sanity but have cited less source material than the current article being reviewed for deletion. Those are the same bands that Throes of Sanity will be playing with at the Swordbrothers Festival in Andernach, Germany on September 11, 2010. The Festival website also is a reliable source evidencing notability. I respectfully disagree with your analysis. The Throes of Sanity source articles cited in the current Wikipedia Throes of Sanity article discuss the quality of the music and how Throes of Sanity fits the specific genre. The cited articles are reliable source material pursuant to Wikipedia definitions and establish notability. Thank you for your consideration.--Metalmusicscene (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See comments above. Throes of Sanity meets the notability requirement in WP:BAND for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Metalmusicscene (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment Additional source material including links to online written versions of print media have been added for this article subsequent to the proposed deletion that establish verifiabilty and notability. Also, there are numerous GHits including reviews, newspaper articles and listings dating back to 1992. A organic Google search reveals additional media that does not appear in the links above.--Metalmusicscene (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy -- Band does not meet criteria at WP:BAND. In 15 years there have not been any sources even mentioning the band as an influence? However, if Throes of Sanity's reunion garnered more media attention and provided more sources for an article, the band could meet WP:BAND criteria. Perhaps the article should be userfied and moved to User:Metalmusicscene/Throes of Sanity until their upcoming reunion festival date later this year. At which time, the article could be re-assessed. What if Throes of Sanity becomes a success at the festival? What if Throes of Sanity records a full-length album and it charts internationally? Based on what I see here, the band is not currently notable from what Wikipedia defines as notable. But they may have potential. Fezmar9 (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ttonyb1 and Fezmar9 comments.--Cannibaloki 13:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reviewed many other bands profiles and although I understand the detemination to keep or delete an article is subjective based on consensus, Throes of Sanity has as much as or more than many of the other progressive metal bands on Wikipedia. If a band is played on the radio, interviewed on the radio, invited to play notable heavy metal festivals with other international bands, written about in newspapers and online print media, that establishes notability pursuant to WP:Band. This article should be kept.--Metalmusicscene (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You may want to check out this list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. More specifically in this case the arguments: "But subject X is very notable to those that know about it" and "But article X exists, therefore article Y should exist too." Also, WP:BAND clearly states that the radio play needs to be a national broadcast, and song airplay needs to be rotational -- not just a local station playing a song a couple times. And as for "The Swordbrothers Festival," it actually seems to be less notable than Throes of Sanity. All of the sources I see for the festival are trivial mentions at best, most stemming from a Portuguese website (despite the fact that the festival being hosted in Germany). Fezmar9 (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not notable enoughShorngenius (talk) 11:04, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional sports owners considered the worst[edit]

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

How does this list exist? It's indiscriminate...it clearly has no chance of being WP:NPOV...and runs the risk of being BLP vio galore. Smashville^talk 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inclusion in the article seems to be based on opinion. I don't see a clear definition/cutoff point of 'worst'. Clubmarx (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely subjective and no chance of ever reaching objectivity. An example of the sort of articles that give Wikipedia a bad name. --Falcadore (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - It would be practically impossible to write this in an NPOV way, and it is indeed a huge risk for BLP violations. --Darkwind (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, overly subjective and inherantly POV. Them From Space 01:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjective and indiscriminate. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 03:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely subjective list violating WP:NPOV. Who is it who "considers" these owners the worst? It's not even clear why some of the owners in this article are listed as among the worst. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well-sourced doesn't always mean a keep, and I can't envision any way that this could be fixed to keep it from violating Wikipedia's policies about point-of-view. TMC1982, who is an editor of long-standing (which makes it a surprise to see a POV article), did put in a lot of work on this, and some of the information and sources should be mentioned in the articles about Angelos, Glass, Hicks, etc. or about their teams (Orioles, Royals, Rangers). Given that it's about them being "the worst" in some aspect, there may be WP:BLP. Mandsford (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment before i weigh in, here are other articles with similar scope: List of films considered the worst, List of television series considered the worst, List of video games notable for negative reception, List of songs topping polls for worst songs. 3 have been afd multiple times. The main difference i see is that THIS article is about persons, often living persons, where BLP is a concern, where the others are about creative works, where there is only NPOV to consider. I was swayed by the arguments at the film article that its not the "worst" idea for an article, as long as the sourcing is multiple and very strong for each listing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between taking the opinions of many publications (bad films and TV series are an example of drawing upon surveys that have been done over the years) and citing a footnote to one person who says "So-and-so was the worst such-and-such ever". Put another way, if lots of critics say that Plan Nine From Outer Space is bad, then it's not one person's POV; if Roger Ebert is the only person who says that Plan Nine From Outer Space, it is one person's POV. Mandsford (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, any sourcing for this subject would have to be huge consensus among commentators, ie a survey "loser". And i agree with your other comments above. yes, we do have some surveys on films, where we probably dont have the same about sports owners.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite there being similar articles kept, the sourcing of individual critics comments is not enough to justify an article (per mandsfords comments).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Awesome POV issues are inherent. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Even the title is weaselly worded because there's no subject to "considered". It would be written in active tense as "The Worst Professional Sports Owners", and when put that way the POV is even clearer (as though it wasn't before). A list of the "worst" whatevers, like the worst films, could work but there should be a requirement of multiple sources. Shadowjams (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with all the "deletes" above. There is not a neutral way to adequately reference a list like this. Xtzou (Talk) 18:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-as per Xtzou--Thanks, Ain lina (box)? 15:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G10 attack page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Since it also relates to living people and is solely intended to disparage its subjects, it certainly should qualify (per D. Eppstein) for G10 "speedy delete". Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 20:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even the title itself violates the policy on weasel words (i.e., ^{[by whom?]}). Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 20:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one could rescue such "information" by creating a category for "Criticized Sports Owners" that has as a criteria for inclusion that the article contain a section for well-documented criticisms of the owner. (Since every sports owner is criticized on a regular basis, this might be hard to discriminate from the category of sports owners.) Again, policies relating to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP would need to be considered. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 20:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd be hardpressed to find an owner that hadn't been criticized. Even in reliable sources. --Smashville^talk 23:29, 1 May 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pistis (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page only between a word in another language and a text; Pistis already redirects to Pistis Sohia, and the Other article has been redirected. All problems solved with hatnotes, no need for this article. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary. Clubmarx (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Boleyn2 (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per ((db-disambig)). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Limeisneom (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain your reasoning? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 13:46, 1 May 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paintbrush (Software)[edit]

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

Non notable software. No citations or references. Nothing in article indicates notability. Cynof Gavuf 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 21:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - sources can be found about it, such as [1], [2], [3]. It's difficult to find any in-depth coverage, though. Robofish (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if kept, it really needs to be renamed, there are so many more notable pieces of software called "Paintbrush". 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree. For example, there has been a program called "Paintbrush" for MS-DOS since the 1980s. Perhaps this could be renamed to Paintbrush (Macintosh software) or something? JIP | Talk 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I do not understand why this is being deleted, the program can be found on a list of Mac software on wikipedia, and yet there was no link to any sort of page, so I created one so that people would be able to get reliable info on the program, but then the article is immediately put up for deletion?? Willowleaf357 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 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) 00:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The above sources definitely don't satisfy WP:N. I couldn't find additional coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)— Rankiri (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see in-depth coverage here. The Softpedia link is a download page, which is practically automatically generated, not a review. The other two blogs have roughly a paragraph each. Pcap ping 16:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be renamed to something other than Paint (Software), but it should not be deleted. The article just needs to be expanded--Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:03, 25 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) 22:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources that have been found aren't significant coverage. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is nothing notable about this software and nothing interesting going for it. It's also presumably a generally unknown piece of third-party software for a Mac. Yousou (talk) 19:58, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Early close (speedy delete). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100 greatest performances of all time[edit]

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

This is a copy of a magazine article. Unencyclopedic, unsourced, and non-notable. ~EdGl ★ 21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not unsourced ("From the April 6 Edition of Premiere Magazine, 2006"), but pretty well a blatant copy of a four year old magazine article. If the list itself was notable enough that it was referred to independently by other sources, it would still need to be limited to a brief summary and a link -- not all 100 of the entries on someone else's list. Generally, "100 greatest ______ of all time" lists sell some more magazines and ad space, but are quickly forgotten. If kept, it needs some context about how the list was put together. Mandsford (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Isn't this a copyright violation? --agr (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Un-encyclopaedic and subjective list taken from a magazine with no criteria for inclusion. Malcolma (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's not much to say that hasn't been said already; it's a straight-up copy of an opinion piece in a magazine. G-Flex (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list of information that provides little if any benefit to the reader without some sort of context in which it is used. It would be suitable to use the external link of the magazine article as a reference to back up a claim made in a related article but, as it stands, it's an unencyclopedic cut-and-paste. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:21, 29 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Materialscientist (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

50 State Scares[edit]

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

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

Articles about a proposed series of no less than 50 horror books, and the first of the series. Publisher "undetermined", publication date for the first book "late 2010". Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:BK. PRODded, but I have to take this anguished plea as contesting deletion. JohnCD (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. When the series actually exists the author can put the article back up. David V Houston (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also it still might not get published. This lools like promotion, also t hey do not even have a publisher at this time. I am begining to wonder if this is a hoax. The only place this exsists seem to be here.Slatersteven (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Darkwind (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I initially CSD'd this article as a hoax and User:JohnCD correctly declined and prodded the article. I don't think there is any malicious intent, but I still get a hoaxy feel. Definitely qualifies for WP:Crystal, though. Tiderolls 00:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:33, 29 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School Girl (film)[edit]

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

No evidence of passing WP:NOTFILM EuroPride (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep: Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF. Anyone care to visit a mainstream review? For a porn film THAT's a rarity. Here it is as reviewed by Time Magazine's Richard Corliss [4] and amazingly is listed as one of Time's "ALL-TIME 100 best films". [5] Go figure. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - The Narch 29th citation isn't enough for me, and other than that, the singular reference by the same magazine (maybe) twice isn't convincing enough either. Shadowjams (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- ??? So having two different reviews a month apart by a notable and respected reviewer in a reliable mainstream source such as Time Magazine is not enough for you? And you don't think it being on their list of "All-Time 100 best films" is worth considering?? That's pretty darn incredible for a porn film. Such just does not happen unless a film is indeed worthy of note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is the same author in both articles. The other cite [that you added after my comment] is from a DC Circuit case that only confirms that it's pornographic enough to seek out if you're looking for porn. It's not that I have something against DC Circuit approved porn, it's that I find that such an interesting piece of film might have been referred to elsewhere, except despite all the bytes spilled thus far, the 3 refs on the page are all we've come up with, and even among them it's still a little unclear whether the link to the director is the direct link. I could change my mind; I do find your explanation with Corliss convincing... but there's a lot of campy porn out there, just because a Time magazine writer is into it doesn't make it especially noteworthy on its own.
That said, in respect of your work adding to the article and some indications, I would be willing to change my opinion if there was some media attention that meets WP:RS outside of Corliss. Shadowjams (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Times article proves its notable. http://www.time.com/time/columnist/corliss/article/0,9565,1043267-5,00.html That's the only easy find when the title of the film and the lead actress are searched together in Google news. Dream Focus 14:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This search in Gbooks reveals enough coverage to warrant a separate article. Also it seems to in the porn studies curriculum at Pitzer College--Sodabottle (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep moved from delete - Google book and curriculum sources meet my criteria; changing !vote as discussed above. Shadowjams (talk) 19:09, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jevan Snead[edit]

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

So here's an interesting case. Jevan Snead doesn't actually meet WP:ATHLETE. He never won a major college award, wasn't drafted, etc. It appears his article hasn't been seriously considered for deletion due to the fact that many experts predicted he would be the #1 player taken in the 2010 NFL Draft. Instead...he wasn't drafted at all...which is why we have WP:CRYSTAL. Do we ignore WP:ATHLETE altogether? Obviously, as I'm proposing it for deletion, you know which side of the fence I'm on. Smashville^talk 19:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Addendum: Also does not meet WP:College Football's own notability standards, as he has not played in a professional league, has not coached, is not in the Hall of Fame, did not win a national award, did not have any noteworthy achievement and has not become notable outside of being a football player. WP:GNG is a guideline that is usually ignored in the case of athletes, as some professional athletes may not meet WP:GNG, but meet WP:ATHLETE standards and vice versa. --Smashville^talk 00:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 19:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- GNG is met by sources in the article (although i did some of them are dead links which need to either be repaired or removed). Whether or not he meets WP:ATHLETE becomes irrelevant, in this case. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are you kidding? --bender235 (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a notable college QB.--Yankees10 21:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATH. WP:GNG only gives rise to a presumption of notability. In my view, if you fail the lowest notability standard on wikipedia (WP:ATH), that presumption is, apart from in exceptional cases, rebutted. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 90% of all football players on this website are not "notable outside of being a football player." Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Failing WP:ATHLETE is not alone grounds for deletion, as outlined in WP:ABELINCOLN. Clearly passes general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets wp:GNG, read Fuhghettaboutit's comments here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dez Bryant --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG. Plus he was just signed to a contract with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, right after the draft concluded. A similar player would be former Arizona State quarterback Rudy Carpenter, who was not drafted, and started last season as an NFL practice squad player. His wikipedia page hung around.--Cdman882 (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Signed NFL player. allstar✰echo 22:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bender. Come on. --JayHenry (talk) 01:31, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Diplomatic Representatives to Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic[edit]

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

Combination of international subjects not notable on its own. Cynof Gavuf 11:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the number of possible 'X diplomats to Y country' and how few of them are notable, I think a good case for notability needs to be made. I don't see it here.David V Houston (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 11 April 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, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

commentHow often would this have to be updates, seems like a news articel to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thankfully List of Ambassadors of Russia to Austria isn't up for deletion...look at the big star in the top right of that one. The fact that the article listed here only covers heads of missions (i.e. ambassadors), there is your notability right there. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:53, 21 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) 18:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice towards any other combination of diplomats or foreign relations articles. While this not not seem to be a notable topic, I can image there might be other lists of diplomats that may be notable. Pointing to List of Ambassadors of Russia to Austria is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A possible solution is to merge this with Japan-Czech relations or something like that. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally accept that heads of mission are notable. Therefore lists of heads of missions are too. No-one would argue if I went and created an article on every Japanese ambassador to the Czech Republic. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons given by Mkativerata and Russavia. This is a notable list with notable individuals listed on it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? If I'm reading WP:DIPLOMAT correctly, simply being a head of mission isn't taken as being enough to be notable the way, say, the chief executive of a subnational division is. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - People who are chosen to be the ambassador are almost always someone who is notable in some manner. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that were true, wouldn't that be codified in WP:DIPLOMAT? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, because diplomats can be low-level diplomats who participate in this conference or that treaty discussion. Ambassadors are high-level diplomats, and are inheritantly notable individuals. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 14:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps, to remove all ambiguity, the article should be renamed List of Japanese ambassadors to Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:20, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom R. Arterburn[edit]

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

Despite multiple external links does not show WP:Notability. Claims to have won a Wall Street Journal award but nothing to back that claim up. Google searches provide few hits and nothing independent about him. Article appears to be an WP:Autobiography. noq (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see little difference between Tom Arterburn's article and that of Kathryn Troutman [6], who somehow passed muster. The Wall Street Journal award can be photographed and sent to the Editor (noq) for verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrnlyst (talk • contribs) 18:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for an article to escape deletion. For that, the article needs to show WP:Notability and be WP:Verifiable via third party WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find Mr. Arterburn to be as notable, if not more so, than many of the authors I've researched on Wikipedia. Don't delete! TariqBurney (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN journalist. Fails WP:BIO. Ms. Troutman got written up in the Washington Post. When this guy manages the same, we might consider something. Ray^Talk 21:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will PDFs of print articles about Mr. Arterburn help verify his notability? If so, can the editor assist in including them in the article?

References do not have to be online - but they must be verifiable - so print articles that identify the publication and issue are acceptable as long as those articles can be retrieved from somewhere. I would like to ask if it is just a coincidence that your user name is also the user portion of an email address used by Arterburn? If not, have you read WP:Autobiography? p.s. please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding ~~~~ at the end of them. noq (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JPGs have been added to the article. Please let us know the status of your opinion of Mr. Arterburn's notability. The coincidence stems from the fact that Mr. Arterburn, his attorney, his literary agent and a number of staffers are all engaged in this process and are using the same computer, email account and user account so as not to "use multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint." This said, would you please extend the deletion discussion another seven days so we may provide the content necessary to satisfy your guidelines? We would also suggest Lexis/Nexis www.lexis.com/ as a source for validating Mr. Arterburn's publications and accolades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrnlyst (talk • contribs)

Note, Per wikipedia policy (WP:NOSHARE), you should not be sharing a single account. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lexis search for "Tom R. Arterburn" comes up with 1 article, which he wrote, and a search for "Tom Arterburn" comes up with nothing. Doesn't appear to be notable from this. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:43, 18 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 01:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went and formatted everything so it looks a lot less ugly. Hope that helps. Silver seren^C 03:33, 18 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) 18:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doing the 'news' search generates 4 hits. Doing the search with "Tom Arterburn" (dropping the middle initial) nets 3 pages worth, but they're almost all about a McCook firefighter/?fire chief? who got fired. Doing the search with -mccook nets only 9 hits, some of which are the same/similar to the 4 found with the initial. Doesn't look notable to me. David V Houston (talk) 21:21, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. as G7. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZB Top 20[edit]

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

non notable "top 20". unsourced and no indication of who compiles it and how. Seems to be just something made up. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are dependent on the main page:

noq (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be a notable chart. The creator of the pages has replaced the content of the all articles with "please delete the page". Also, List of number-one songs on ZB Top 20 of 2010 should be added to this deletion discussion. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the following that are essentially copy&paste moves of the original articles which the creator has requested be deleted.:

noq (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, articles violate WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:11, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish Democrats[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a "political party" which appears to have no functionaries or officers other than its founder/sole candidate. The correspondence address on the website is a private house. Party has no elected members at any level of government, and is fielding only one candidate in the upcoming election. Would appear to be essentially a vehicle for one independent non-notable politician. DuncanHill (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until the party gets significant mentions in the media. --Joowwww (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any coverage in reliable sources upon which any king of reliable article can be built. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The most significant reference is on a local BBC blog, entitled 'On Minor Parties' Moswento (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article appears to promote an individual independent candidate rather than describe a bona fide political party. Even if it is argued that anyone who stands as a candidate in a general election (whether for a party or as an independent) meets the notability criterion the article should be completely re-written and titled Jonathan Rogers. Andy F (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent claim of notability, and having the financial ability to put up a deposit and creating the device of a "political party" to cover the views of one person does not make it a national, regional and barely local political entity. Noting a COI - I fall within the constituency the party is contesting (and not even commenting that the WP article via Duncan Hill's page is the first I have been made aware of them...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we include this do we have every independant who stands? Not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only ten days to the election and no indication that anyone takes them seriously. I have amended "has candidates running in the next election" to "has a candidate... " as the only source does not support a claim of more than one. JohnCD (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought this rang a bell. It was already speedily deleted in March when at Cornish Democrats (The), I told User:Theword21LAYTON why at the time. Moswento has found what is probably the only coverage, which is not what you can hang an article on. Fences&Windows 21:25, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicodemus Flower[edit]

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

Fails notability guideline at WP:MUSIC. In particular, only claim to real notability seems to be as a former member of a band (Fuzzy Logic) of equally dubious notability. No external sources appear to discuss him.

PROD removed by article author, so AfD instead. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 18:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 18:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for:

featuring on Statik album '[Untitled]' alongside Fyfe Dangerfield (Guillemots), Pete Doherty (Babyshambles & Libertines), Coco Sumner, and Wretch 32
ALSO is a member of ban RedRoots toured with Babyshambles in 2009 as part of Band RedRoots who won Xfm uploaded contest (which is confirmed through Xfm website and shows that band have received radio airplay)
During tour w/Babyshambles performed (separate from RedRoots) live with Drew from Babyshambles during a Pete Doherty show (see references for reviews of the show)
Performed REGULARLY with Pete Doherty and Babyshambles at Rhythm Factory with RedRoots
Not just a former member but FOUNDING member of Fuzzy Logic
Production credits on both Fuzzy Logic and RedRoots CDs
Music credits on film 'My War is Yours' which was showcased and nominated for awards at several film festivals.

— [Unsigned comment added by ThornsCru (talk • contribs) 19:30, 25 April 2010.]

The Statik album doesn't seem to be notable enough to be listed anywhere. The RedRoots band don't yet have their own article yet, so I would recommend creating that first before creating one about one particular member. Appearing on stage doesn't count as "notability". As already mentioned, Fuzzy Logic are of dubious notability. Production credits on your own albums doesn't count as notability. Music credits on a not-really-notable film doesn't count as notability. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the things listed above meet any of Wikipedia's WP:MUSIC guidelines for notability. They might indirectly lead to notability if any of these activities led to coverage in independent third-party sources, but I didn't find any on GNews. RedRoots might meet notability through radio airplay, but the most I can see this getting Nicodemus Flower is a redirect. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have created a page for RedRoots and added references to Nicodemus Flower.

Wikipedia's WP:MUSIC guidelines for notability state that a musician is notable if they have been a member of two NOTABLE ensembles.

Nicodemus Flower founded the band Fuzzy Logic and currently plays in the Band Red Roots.

So then we must discuss whether RedRoots and Fuzzy Logic are notable.

RedRoots satisfy criteria 1 of notability by being the subject of an article in both print and online media

Also they have received radio airply by DJ Steve Harris on Xfm and WON the contest satisfying criteria 9 and 11

see http://www.xfm.co.uk/artists/interviews/2008/xfm-uploaded-winners-to-play-wakestock

Regarding Fuzzy Logic, They were nominated for the Balcony TV which depending on whether you count that as a major music contest satisfies criteria 9.

In addition to this, they have been featured in non trivial published works both in online and print media satisfying criteria 1

Also, frontman Darwood had a track featured on Foresight Urban released which would make the album notable due to the fact it was released on Casual Records (who also released Lady Sovereign early in her career (satisfying criteria 10 - producing work for a notable compilation)

see itunes.apple.com/gb/album/foresight-urban/id268423909
see http://www.store.limewire.com/store/app/pages/album/Album/productId/8739/
see http://www.skiddle.com/news/all/Review-Foresight---Urban--Casual-Records/1951/

Each band needs only to meet ONE criteria yet both meet more than one. Nicodemus Flower as a member of BOTH notable bands becomes a notable musician.

[[User:ThornsCru|ThornsCru] (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2010 (GMT)

This is not the place to discuss the notability of either of the bands. The point remains that neither of these bands has garnered widespread and non-trivial coverage, nor airplay, nor any releases on any record label. At best, these bands may just barely scrape through the notability criterion (although I highly doubt that at least one will). It is way too early to be writing an article about one of the members.

By the way, your user name implies you may have a conflict of interest here; please could you disclose whether this is the case? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 13:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Nicodemus Flower's manager and friend and was asked to create this page after he'd noticed That Fuzzy Logic had their own page. However, I respect the rules of this wiki and have provided references for all I have stated on both Nicodemus Flower page and RedRoots.

The wikipedia criteria for notability doesnt say that any amount of time is necessary to pass before a member of two ensembles become notable and by providing evidence for the notability of RedRoots and Fuzzy Logic, Nicodemus fits the criteria of a notable musician regarless of whether he himself has garnered lots of attention as a solo artist.

I understand that the fact that Fuzzy Logic have received no radio airplay doesn't help their cause for notability however, they do still fulfil at least one criterion for notable musicians. Also RedRoots HAVE had airplay on Xfm and fulfil other criteria and by wikipedia's own definition ARE notable musicians.

[[User:ThornsCru|ThornsCru] (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2010 (GMT)

My point is that whilst Flower might (tenuously) be notable by the letter of the WP guidelines, he's not notable by the spirit. Essentially, there is no need for this article, unless he becomes truly notable in his own right. In any event, my feeling is that the Fuzzy Logic (band) article will be deleted, so this argument is a moot point! Also, if the only reason this article exists is because the subject's manager created it (which is against WP:COI...), then that's yet more evidence that the subject isn't as notable as you'd have us believe! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 15:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I have a professional connection with the artist and have declared so. However, the fact remains that by WP own rules on notability he is notable and though he may not be the most notable musician in the world, he satisfies enough criteria to be awarded an article on wikipedia.

I have tried my best to corroborate statements made on the page with references and remain neutral however if you still feel that there has been a conflict of interest I am willing to stop editing the page. In the meantime, as he does meet the relevant criteria, I think it would be best for the page to remain and for other wikipedians to ensure it remains neutral. I will relinquish editing duties if wikipedia feels I have acted innapropriately but the fact remains that the page has been created for a notable musician and should remain!

ThornsCru (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 April 2010 (GMT)

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, and the chain of logic to reach notability is rather tenuous at best. -- Whpq (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. neither of his two band appear notable. major coi spamming. (suggesting Red Roots is the subject of http://www.nme.com/news/pete-doherty/44305 is extremely questionable). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:14, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Vivant[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person, unreferenced BLP for years Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Nothing has happened in the three years this this was last at AFD -- in particular, no sources, no assertion of notability. Oh yes, one thing. A new policy on deleting unsourced BLPs. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:16, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No objection to renomination. The nominator's conduct may have cast a bit of a pall over the discussion; I think considering all factors this is a fair reading of the full discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee List of Colleges and Schools[edit]

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

This is a meaningless list. All the colleges and schools on this list have their own individual articles with substantial contents. In addition, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee article already lists these colleges and schools in its academic units section. Revws (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Revws (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:POINTy nomination from a single purpose account just back from a edit ban (see here) for trying to stifle discussion on this matter and in an effort to promote articles he feels he owns. I really don't care if this article goes or stays. I created the page as it is clear that a number of the then sub articles on the various Schools and Colleges do not have the significant coverage that the WP:GNG lay down and as an easy way for someone wanting an overview on the Uni a single place to view. As I said earlier, it is clear from Revws (talk · contribs) actions over the articles he feels he owns them and that he sees this as either a way to annoy or upset me and as a way to make sure that the articles he has created stay in the form he wants. I should also point out that it is entirely possible that Revws has a conflict of interest in this matter and has been warned of such by another editor (see here) it has also been discussed on WP:ANI. Codf1977 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I consider each of the individual colleges or schools listed here notable, as first-order divisions of a major university. But if so, we do not need this article, because the articles would be linked directly from the main article on the University. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, however it looks like the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines are clear that 'In general these organizations are not notable (see WP:ORG)'. Codf1977 (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Separate articles for each of the colleges and schools at UWM are simply not needed. Aside from their college brochure-type information, there is very little content in them, certainly not enough to warrant their own articles. They could be part of the UWM article, or merged with the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee List of Colleges and Schools article. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying it is original research then the source articles must be as all the content was originally merged from the stub articles of the Colleges and Schools (see talk page) Codf1977 (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gavin - This [UWM Schools and Colleges] would seem to contravene your contention that this list or anything like it, has not been published anywhere.... Do you agree?--Mike Cline (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 17:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee#Colleges & schools. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having done some more looking into this issue, and looking at Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines which states :

“

If an institution's faculties, constituent academic colleges, or academic departments are especially notable or significant they may have their own dedicated article (e.g. Jesus College, Oxford, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania). In general these organizations are not notable (see WP:ORG) and should not be split off from the main institution article in the absence of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. If some faculties or academic colleges have significance and others do not, it may be the case that the institution's academic programs as a whole are notable. In this case it may be acceptable to create a separate academics article (see Michigan State University academics, Colleges of the University of Oxford)

”

given that I am not sure that any of the following :

are "are especially notable or significant" to warrant an article and should be fully merged into this page. Codf1977 (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - For the show case Michigan State University academics, Colleges of the University of Oxford in the guideline you provided. These two subarticles have their own Sub-sub articles for all their individual colleges and schools. There is nothing wrong for creating articles for these colleges and schools. As they are notable either individual or as a whole as a major research university in the US and special role in the education in Wiscosin. Your list article is not helpful to the readers, who are lost among a long list of schools when searching for the one they are interested. At last, guidelines are guidance or suggestions, not law. Revws (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No need to get "lost among a long list of schools". Just use the Table of Contents. That's what it's for. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary list. Limeisneom (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just like Usefulness is not a valid reason to keep, Meaningless and Unnecessary are not valid reasons to delete since all these words are purely subjective. This list serves two list purposes well-information (as it expands the descriptions for each college over what is in the main article), and navigation. The subject of the list is not OR nor are the contents as there are ample sources to support the existance of these colleges and schools to include an explicit list of them on the UWM site. And it is doubtful that Notability is an issue as a whole or for individual entries. Agreed, there may be some redundancy here, but that can be dealt with through article improvement, merging, consolidation or whatever, not deletion.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most university articles have those nice templates at the bottom. This list is either redundant to that template, or an impediment to getting such a template created. Abductive (reasoning) 02:48, 3 May 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoletorp[edit]

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

Contested prod. Three year old article that fails to assert notability of the subject. The only link within the article appears to be broken. An external link was added today as the result of the prod, but it is a primary reference that can not be used to assert notability. AussieLegend (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation: KEEP

This is a standard and reasonably helpful stub that forms part of Wikiproject Sweden. The editor in question who raised this for deletion has been stalking my posts, and undoing them ... which is also how he got here. This appears to be a little unhelpful. The broken link has been removed, and the page seems to be working quite nicely. It might be more constructive if AussieLegend could help improve the article, rather than placing inappropriate deletion tags on it. (KrodMandooon (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Please, assume good faith and don't make baseless allegations. You made a number of edits to Anzac Day, an article that is currently protected because of excessive vandalism. Some of those edits have been reverted by other editors. Included in your edits was restoration of previously challenged content that had been deleted. I only arrived at Spoletorp because it had been added to Anzac Day and I was tyring to find out what or where a Spoletorp was to confirm that it was notable and appropriate for inclusion in Anzac Day. It clearly is not, which is why I prodded it. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very pleased to hear that. Unfortunately, several of your recent edits at Anzac Day appear to be mere undo's of almost any change introduced by any number of editor's making changes to that page. You appear to be asserting some kind of personal 'ownership' of the page, as your chosen name would also seem to attest. This is not the forum for any problems that might exist on Anzac Day, and I remain confused why you have brought this discussion here. KrodMandooon (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I will ask you to assume good faith and stop making baseless allegations. As I indicated above, Anzac Day has been the target of excessive vandalism. The reversions that I have made have been reversions of vandalism. The discussion on Anzac Day only occurred to refute the poor faith baseless allegations made by you as part of your Keep recommendation, allegations that you continue to make, which are most definitely unhelpful. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming my talk page. Please also stop spamming the Spoletorp page with endless tags. When the tags are addressed, you just add more. This is really way outside 'good faith'. KrodMandooon (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These comments have nothing to do with this AfD. However the warnings at your talk page have been valid. What was not valid is your response to my attempts to improve Spoletorp by bringing it up to some sort of reasonable standard by fixing the layout, and adding templates that highlight the various issues that the article has.[7] Your constant reversion to the poor state that this article was in,[8][9][10] does not help this article at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

What is the fuss about? Page looks fine. Tags appear spurious. --Baulkhamhillsrsl (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tags that you think are spurious, but which identify valid problems with the article, have nothing to do with this AfD. The article was nominated because it is not notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article sat without sources for over three years; the only source provided is for a minor detail and from a primary sources. I'm not convinced that being the most expensive residence housing is an assertion of notability anyway. So, in the end, the article fails both key requirements: the subject isn't shown to be notable, and only the smallest portion is verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that this student housing is notable. No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:18, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Schildt[edit]

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

Delete The article has four citations, such poor quality as they are and all four of them relate to criticism ~~that the subject is repeatedly complaining about as a BLP violation~~ The criticism is from three (not wikipedia notable) opinionated commentators. Perhaps a list of his notable books it a better solution. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC) IMPORTANT NOTE: It is not the subject of the BLP (Schildt) who is complaining about the article, it is an editor, User:Spinoza1111 aka "Edward Nilges" , now banned for various abuses and posting from anon IPs, who has decided to be the white knight. Barsoomian (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, Barsoomian. I have decided to be the "white knight". But the article was NOT tagged for deletion by me, although it was done in response to my complaints. I don't see where it says that if a man is "blocked" (in my case based on a canard) he loses rights to help wikipedia, unless Jimbo is such a Randroid that my altruism, my white knightery, is itself now evil. I am not primarily trying to help wikipedia, nor even Schildt. I am in fact demonstrating that we can stand up to bullies, whether they are half-educated little programmers like Seebach or convenience store clerks pretending to edit wikipedia.

I was clarifying who was complaining about this article, which is you, not Schildt. I never said you had tagged the article for deletion. Barsoomian (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (please leave this statement alone, since while I did not tag the article, I have brought the BLP issue to the attention of editors who have. If your "democratic" rules mean anything, the Schildt article is in violation of BLP. If your "democratic" procedures mean anything, even a so-called "banned" user needs to be treated with respect based on the issue at hand, which is IMO a serious and long-standing violation of wikipedia's own policy.)

Steve: I accept your change since it appears that will protect my comment from further vandalism by Barsoomian. Editors: please read the "long and 'mal-formatted'" comment which makes the case for deletion of the Schildt article.

Long and mal-formatted comment by user:121.202.78.198 continues inside. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" - Exodus, KJV The Seebach and Feather posts are clearly polemical. Basically, both went through a Schildt book in one pass trying to find as many "errors" as possible. Both make their own errors, including the false claim that "void main() is not standard C" when according to the C99 standard it is indeed, just not "hosted": it is freestanding standard C. Errors in a computer book's code examples are a somewhat serious matter, rather like errors in commercial software, and to-date no practical method has been found for avoiding either. However, McGraw Hill, like any software or computer book publisher, indemnifies itself through a warranty disclaimer concerning errors. This means that the programmer-reader, to get the benefit out of what are intended, in Schildt, to be representative code snippets, needs to exercise caution, and learn, while typing those code snippets into a particular implementation of C. All computer books contain such errors as a byproduct of the author's human limitations, the production process in which live code becomes dead PDF, and the stability of the particular programming language being discussed. It's easier to err in the case of C, which has never been responsibly standardized and in which aliasing creates instability, to make "errors". As in the case of Kathy Sierra, programmers who are rather aliterate (as is evident from Seebach's and Feather's strange use of "clear" when they call Schildt "clear") tend to be confused by a breezy style and prefer manuals which the mere mortal cannot understand. Seebach, who led the charge against Schildt, confesses to having a radically different learning style in which he is easily confused if something is expressed in a non-literal way. But Herb's intended audience does not learn in this way. They understand, and at times love, the goofy professor who gets a proof wrong, and uses his own mistakes to teach something new. They appreciate a chance to try a code snippet, find that it works wrong, and fix it. Here is wikipedia's own policy: We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Not one of the three sources are of sufficient neutrality to be reliable. Seebach starts by accusing Schildt of having written a book with hundreds of bugs (but then presents only twenty in the previous edition of "C: the Complete Nonsense", and only a few more in the next). The bugs turn out for the most part to be artifacts of the instability of C and Microsoft/Linux differences. Feather's document as a copy-cat, drive by shooting emulates Seebach: it's a claim that "this author is bad" with less than fifty examples of why he's bad, most of which are trivia and violation of Linux shibboleth. The ONLINE copy of the Summit FAQs does not even reference Schildt; instead it snarkily refers to a fictional book, with the insider joke that this means "Schildt". The sourcing of the Schildt article is extraordinarily in violation of BLP. Some of the posters below say that "Schildt's friends can post favorable reviews". This however, reminds me of the kangaroo court I was subjected to in 2006 when I was bullied by wikipedia editor amerindianarts; out of the blue one finds one is on Trial. In real law, bringing a charge is considered a serious matter, for a grand jury. Here, anyone can ruin anyone's life by bringing a charge to which the person has to respond. There's plenty of favorable information on Schildt, of course, starting with his sales figures and his adoption as a textbook. But he should not have to stand trial...unless all computer authors must stand trial, such as myself, or Peter Seebach. I can see below that Schildt's enemies would like this review to be a plebiscite. This is however to be ignorant of the law of small numbers. The people who vote to "keep" are too small in number to constitute a plebiscite, and too invested in a pro-Linux outcome to constitute a jury. Finally, this strange matter that a monstrum horrendum, a sock puppeteer, and a ruffian like myself should be also a white knight, and as such, as an Emile Zola defending no friend of his, a Dreyfus-Schildt, should act in such a disinterested way. It is because my own defense against my bullying on wikipedia is futile because snot-nosed convenience store clerks don't like my prose style, having been ill-equipped to read above a low upper bound of complexity. Whilst still being adequately prolix relative to the issues at hand, up to and including the Fascism of Wikipedia, I find it more effective to undo the damage done to a hard working computer author. As a hard working computer author, family member, and member of his community, Herbert Schildt's right to privacy, guaranteed to him by the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution, have been for too long violated by this article. You don't have an article about me, although I'm a computer author. You don't have an article about Dan Appleman, who's written extensively on computers and is a real nice guy. And this is as it should be. Computer authors are for the most part employees of computer publishers who hew closely, as did Schildt, to a marketing plan. They are not Zolas, able to publish their own views at will; they are more like Captain Dreyfus, honorable men and women who try to do their best. Ecclesiastes says "let us now praise famous men, and their children after them". It goes on to say that we must honor men who are invisible, who raise families and work hard at their jobs. If they find they can actually write more than the disorganized hate mail of a Seebach or a Feather, they discover, as I discovered, that they can make a little extra cash writing books about their trade, perhaps to send their children to school. We honor them by leaving them alone, and not dragging their name in the mud. You bear false witness against obscure men when on the basis of the superstitions shibboleths of an unstable programming language, you make their father's name, their sons' name, their wive's adopted name, into a foul word, such as "Bullschildt". Take this article down.

Long and mal-formatted comment by user:121.202.78.198 continues inside. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" - Exodus, KJV

The Seebach and Feather posts are clearly polemical. Basically, both went through a Schildt book in one pass trying to find as many "errors" as possible. Both make their own errors, including the false claim that "void main() is not standard C" when according to the C99 standard it is indeed, just not "hosted": it is freestanding standard C.

Errors in a computer book's code examples are a somewhat serious matter, rather like errors in commercial software, and to-date no practical method has been found for avoiding either. However, McGraw Hill, like any software or computer book publisher, indemnifies itself through a warranty disclaimer concerning errors. This means that the programmer-reader, to get the benefit out of what are intended, in Schildt, to be representative code snippets, needs to exercise caution, and learn, while typing those code snippets into a particular implementation of C.

All computer books contain such errors as a byproduct of the author's human limitations, the production process in which live code becomes dead PDF, and the stability of the particular programming language being discussed. It's easier to err in the case of C, which has never been responsibly standardized and in which aliasing creates instability, to make "errors".

As in the case of Kathy Sierra, programmers who are rather aliterate (as is evident from Seebach's and Feather's strange use of "clear" when they call Schildt "clear") tend to be confused by a breezy style and prefer manuals which the mere mortal cannot understand. Seebach, who led the charge against Schildt, confesses to having a radically different learning style in which he is easily confused if something is expressed in a non-literal way.

But Herb's intended audience does not learn in this way. They understand, and at times love, the goofy professor who gets a proof wrong, and uses his own mistakes to teach something new. They appreciate a chance to try a code snippet, find that it works wrong, and fix it.

Here is wikipedia's own policy:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]

Not one of the three sources are of sufficient neutrality to be reliable. Seebach starts by accusing Schildt of having written a book with hundreds of bugs (but then presents only twenty in the previous edition of "C: the Complete Nonsense", and only a few more in the next). The bugs turn out for the most part to be artifacts of the instability of C and Microsoft/Linux differences.

Feather's document as a copy-cat, drive by shooting emulates Seebach: it's a claim that "this author is bad" with less than fifty examples of why he's bad, most of which are trivia and violation of Linux shibboleth.

The ONLINE copy of the Summit FAQs does not even reference Schildt; instead it snarkily refers to a fictional book, with the insider joke that this means "Schildt".

The sourcing of the Schildt article is extraordinarily in violation of BLP.

Some of the posters below say that "Schildt's friends can post favorable reviews". This however, reminds me of the kangaroo court I was subjected to in 2006 when I was bullied by wikipedia editor amerindianarts; out of the blue one finds one is on Trial. In real law, bringing a charge is considered a serious matter, for a grand jury. Here, anyone can ruin anyone's life by bringing a charge to which the person has to respond. There's plenty of favorable information on Schildt, of course, starting with his sales figures and his adoption as a textbook. But he should not have to stand trial...unless all computer authors must stand trial, such as myself, or Peter Seebach.

I can see below that Schildt's enemies would like this review to be a plebiscite. This is however to be ignorant of the law of small numbers. The people who vote to "keep" are too small in number to constitute a plebiscite, and too invested in a pro-Linux outcome to constitute a jury.

Finally, this strange matter that a monstrum horrendum, a sock puppeteer, and a ruffian like myself should be also a white knight, and as such, as an Emile Zola defending no friend of his, a Dreyfus-Schildt, should act in such a disinterested way. It is because my own defense against my bullying on wikipedia is futile because snot-nosed convenience store clerks don't like my prose style, having been ill-equipped to read above a low upper bound of complexity. Whilst still being adequately prolix relative to the issues at hand, up to and including the Fascism of Wikipedia, I find it more effective to undo the damage done to a hard working computer author.

As a hard working computer author, family member, and member of his community, Herbert Schildt's right to privacy, guaranteed to him by the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution, have been for too long violated by this article. You don't have an article about me, although I'm a computer author. You don't have an article about Dan Appleman, who's written extensively on computers and is a real nice guy. And this is as it should be. Computer authors are for the most part employees of computer publishers who hew closely, as did Schildt, to a marketing plan. They are not Zolas, able to publish their own views at will; they are more like Captain Dreyfus, honorable men and women who try to do their best.

Ecclesiastes says "let us now praise famous men, and their children after them". It goes on to say that we must honor men who are invisible, who raise families and work hard at their jobs. If they find they can actually write more than the disorganized hate mail of a Seebach or a Feather, they discover, as I discovered, that they can make a little extra cash writing books about their trade, perhaps to send their children to school.

We honor them by leaving them alone, and not dragging their name in the mud. You bear false witness against obscure men when on the basis of the superstitions shibboleths of an unstable programming language, you make their father's name, their sons' name, their wive's adopted name, into a foul word, such as "Bullschildt".

Take this article down.

Keep the author objects because the criticism is negative, but is welcome to add positive positive reviews, if any can be found. To criticize someone's books is not a BLP violation--if one publishes a book, one cannot expect everyone to like it. Extending BLP to this would prevent any discussion of even notable work of notable people--that is, unless we abandoned NPOV entirely, and only printed articles that praised people's work-- WP IS NOT A VANITY PRESS. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is left if I remove the uncited? Just the weakly cited opinionated critism. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The uncited has been cited. --GRuban (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His books published by major publishers show he is important. The tone of the article makes him look silly since an insightful reader will understand that it was written for self promotion, but that's not a reason to delete. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schildt is a bestsellng author, and the influence of his books, positive and negative, is important. Barsoomian (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's only a bestselling author in a techie field. Dan Appleman has written several best-sellers but does not merit wikipedia treatment. Ivan Flores, an NYU professor who wrote a lot of books about early computers, has been totally forgotten.

But it's a very big techie field, and Schildt has sold millions of books -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So has Appleman. But neither Appleman, nor Schildt, nor myself will be on Ophrah Winfrey. Tech books are doorstoppers and boat anchors once past their sell-by date, and the authors work under the control of a marketing plan.

Furthermore, the article was created just to diss Schildt. We know this. This in itself is a serious BLP violation.

Schildt's refusal to comment clearly implies he wishes his Ninth Amendment right to privacy to be respected. Had he gotten into it with Seebach as Torvalds did with Tanenbaum, this would have been a disclaimer of a right to privacy. But Schildt's silence means "please leave me and my family alone".

The Wyoming lawyer Gerry Spence went to court on behalf of a Miss Wyoming beauty contest winner who'd occasioned foul speculation in Hustler. The foul speculation caused her to lose her job and she had to join the Army. Spence demonstrates that she was NOT a public figure just by virtue of winning a beauty contest. Herb ain't gonna win any beauty contests but there's an analogy here: a person who accomplishes something within a narrowly definable field should not be rewarded by being exposed to shame and disgrace.

The fact that other authors might not have articles on Wikipedia has no bearing on this discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tech books are doorstoppers and boat anchors once past their sell-by date, and the authors work under the control of a marketing plan - neither is generally true. "Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment" by W. Richard Stevens is going strong after 18 years (13 on the first edition), as are his network programming books, and the Dragon book spans 33 years on 4 editions (and Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools lived 20 years on one edition). My work shelf also has K&R2 (published 1988) and Harbison and Steele ("only" 8 years old). Good tech book can live to decades, and are not written to short-lived marketing specs. Not that any of this is relevant... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But: the people who want the article to remain are generally convinced, obviously, that Herb's books aren't "good". Therefore, by their logic, Herb was a run of the mill author, as I am ("Build Your Own .Net Language and Compiler", Nilges, Apress 2004). This, paradoxically enough, argues for the article's removal, even if Herb Schildt's rights to privacy and dignity are discounted.

Hope you don't mind me interjecting a comment here - I want to keep the article because I think Mr Schildt is notable, but I *do* think his books are good - I've used several of them in my programming career and have found them very useful. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the accomplishment of writing the Dragon Book would merit notice. The crucial test: whether John Markoff, the New York Times' tech reporter, would notice the author/programmer. Dijkstra got an obituary as did Krysten "Simula" Nygaard.

However, Markoff would not recognize mere authorship divorced from extra accomplishment. Aho et al. were Princeton faculty which is distinctive in itself, and have participated at the highest level. Schildt is not a member of the Princeton faculty.

I looked for the Gerry Spence/Miss Wyoming bit. It was Penthouse, and he lost.[11][12] But besides that, you seem to be comparing a beauty contestant not needing to expect that people will write pornography about her to a technical book writer not needing to expect that people will write critical reviews of the books he writes. I'd argue that yes, a technical writer does need to expect critical technical reviews. If they called him resentful and autistic, now that would be over the line. --GRuban (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a technical author must put up with critical reviews, in, typically, the Awesome Windows Journal of Secrets and Whoopee prior to Amazon...and today, with snot nosed convenience store clerks on Amazon.

But if wikipedia claims to be anything more than Jimbo's Awesome Encyclopedia of Whiz-Bang, a carnival attraction and freak show, it must not, by its own BLP policy, allow itself to be used for the creation of an article written as a container for personal attacks on a private person.

This is independent of the fact that Jimbo, who I regard with the utmost scorn as a buffoon, has created a framework for racist attacks on a hardworking South African restaurant owner (Mzoli's). The logic is the same: if an article can be created about Mzoli's, then I shortly shall expect an article about my favorite Chicago bar, Trader Todd's.

If Herb Schildt can be so singled out as can the owner of Mzoli's, then anytime some gimp doesn't like someone, all said gimpwad has to do is create a seemingly neutral biography of that person, and get his gimp friends to start adding information damaging to a formerly private individual.

In Flynt v Falwell the Supreme Court defined what it means to be a public individual. Miss Wyoming was not, and the Spence case is a legal analogue to Schildt.

You need to fairly apply your own rules about notability. Ask yourself if John Markoff would care about Schildt: ask yourself in good conscience if he'd write an article about the damage done by programmers corrupted by reading Schildt who believe that void main() is "good C". Then give Markoff a call and pitch your story.

After he laughs at you and hangs up, get a life.

There is a real problem about software correctness. In my experience, bugs are often the result of office bullying of programmers told by management to "get it done" and "sacrifice quality", abetted by guys like Seebach, who can't code (as my audit discovered) yet are all too ready to gossip, as Seebach has gossiped, about other programmer's incompetence.

And I am unpersuaded by arguments that I should leave Seebach's reputation unsullied. I have been dragged through the mud on wikipedia because I claimed in 2006 wrt to the Kant article that one cannot write the history of philosophy without doing philosophy, something that Bertrand Russell would agree with but was interpreted as an "insult" by a horde of "editors" that crawled out from under a rock, and into wikipedia, in 2006. I have been called a "kook" and a "moron" by Seebach and as such Schildt's cause is mine.

"Dan Appleman has written several best-sellers but does not merit wikipedia treatment."

Appleman certainly merits wikipedia coverage, as the author of some geek books that were regarded as the canonical texts on their field. The fact that no-one has yet felt driven to write it doesn't rule out the possibility in the future. These books weren't Brooks or Meyer, but they had their place and they were noted for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare Dan. He's a Microsoft specialist and I don't want to see his bio be a target.

Wikipedia's own policy wrt BLP makes it clear that you must be either a media star or a convicted criminal to merit a bio. This is for wikipedia's own protection. I realize that Gerry Spence lost the Miss Wyoming case, but his reasoning was sound. In order to encourage ordinary achievement, we need to make sure that people who do not seek broad media exposure or commit fallacies retain their Ninth Amendment and UN human right of privacy, otherwise those people will sue.

Otherwise, any kid in the news for being admitted to Princeton will be at risk.

I do not know why the policy isn't simply "ask the subject's permission unless she or he is a general media star or convicted felon". I'd hazard that it's because wikipedians, from Jimbo down to the snot-nosed convenience store clerks, have no conception whatsoever of human dignity, having themselves none.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The uncited information is not contentious and can be sourced, possibly after slight rewriting. For parts of it, sources are/were already present in the article, just not as inline citations. Apart from being one of the best-known authors of programming language books, Herbert Schildt is a member of Starcastle, a group that appears to have an entry in the Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music (to which I have no access, unfortunately). While some of the facts claimed about him in the article (before Cirt removed large parts) are not easily verifiable (e.g. that he was the original keyboardist, that he appears on all albums, and the use of Oberheim synthesizers), they are all plausible and not contentious at all.

I would !vote for deletion (as I almost always do) if the subject had asked for deletion. But that is not the case. There is no reason to suppose that Herbert Schildt from Central Illinois = Edward G. Nilges from Hong Kong. Hans Adler 19:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, Hans. I have never met Herb and I do not use his books. I was somewhat impressed by his early "Born to Code in C" but as a C reference I prefer Harbison and Steele and K & R. However, under the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution, the dude is entitled to personal privacy and peace of mind as effectively an employee of McGraw Hill under the law, which generally holds employees harmless from bad practice, and which under the First Amendment refuses to have an opinion about the worth of any publication, save for child pornography.

Keep. The man is "the world's leading programming author".[13][14][15] McGraw-Hill says so, and they're a leading publisher, so a Wikipedia:reliable source. That's not borderline notability, that's Notability with a capital N. There's only one author any publisher says that about. --GRuban (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only has low-grade self-published sources - publisher's puffs and poison pen pieces - which are insufficient for a contentious, derogatory BLP. It is our policy that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately..." Colonel Warden (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was coming to the review to say that I had sourced every section. :-P. A publisher's puff is not a self published source, by definition, and neither are the C Vu reviews I added. Neither is the C FAQ, since it's also published by a major publisher. It's pretty hard to accept that this is a derogatory BLP when the only criticism is one sentence criticising his books, not him, out of five paragraphs. The main contention comes from a single banned editor; if being occasionally blanked by an editor who was then banned qualified an article as contentious, every Nickelodeon TV star and Disney character article would qualify. --GRuban (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The publishers promotional copy is both written and published by them and so it's self-published material. The C Vu source is a book review and contains no biographical information. The C FAQ reference is likewise a comment upon a book, not its author. This biographical article seems to be a WP:COATRACK for criticism of particular books, much of which is self-published. When one compares this article with Eric Ely - an article which had far better biographical sources which were actually about the person but which was deleted nonetheless - we see that this article falls far short of what's needed for controversial biographies. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something published by a major publishing company is not self-published (unless you argue that Schildt is secretly running McGraw-Hill himself as a complex front?) Yes, the book reviews are reviews of books; they do not question Mr. Schildt's ethics, looks, personal hygiene, or family life, just his books. Which are what he's notable for; highly notable, as the quote says. I can't accept the article is a coatrack when the criticism is one sentence. Neither do I accept it is a contentious article when the contention in question is a claim that technical criticism of technical books is akin to pornography. --GRuban (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Schildt is well-known among people interested in C. "No judgement" ;-) And Summit and Seebach are notable commentators. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Summit nor Seebach seem notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. This just seems to be a matter of professional jealousy in a walled-garden community. Private feuds of this sort do not belong here. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of a Wikipedia article is neither a necessary nor a sufficient criterion for notability. And of course, the community of C language experts (and wannabes) is the relevant community for finding comments about C experts (and wannabes). What do you expect, comments from a literary reviewer in the humanities? And C is one of the most popular programming languages ever - it's not as if this community is small by any reasonable standards. Both Summit and Seebs are multiply published and well-regarded authors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue in the case of Seebach wrt books: he has published only one book. Furthermore, he has revealed recently on comp.lang.c that he has a serious learning disorder which causes him to learn quite differently from "normal" people which disqualifies him from commenting on Schildt's methods. He has revealed that he has taken NO computer science classes and is self-taught as a programmer. He paid his way onto the standards board as a volunteer, and his fame is primarily based on his criticism of Schildt. I have audited his code and discovered that he overuses C idioms and makes newbie errors consistently. — [Unsigned comment added by 121.202.78.198 (talk • contribs).]

Seebach has at least 3 books to his name, and published dozens of articles for IBM DeveloperWorks, see [16]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has written only one by himself. He co-authored the book on unix(r) and was one of a host of contributors to C Unleashed, a not well regarded book. Furthermore, all of these contributions appeared after "C: the Complete Nonsense", so when he wrote CTCN he had no standing. I believe (need to check) that at the time he wrote the first edition of CTCN he was not part of the Standards board, either. Yet, his tyro's document grandfathered all other opinions on Schildt, and became an "Obama birthplace" meme. The number of anti-Schildt references are only citations of this, in a "Malabar Cave" echo chamber.

Notability of the author of cited source is completely irrelevant. NVO (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But his credibility is. Peter Seebach appeared to be a recognized professional as a member of C99. But on comp.lang.c, he said he paid his way onto the board. He wasn't invited based on a track record, and he divulged this fact only recently under clc pressure. Seebach's "day job" is, as he has freely confessed on clc recently, not programming; it's bug finding and writing shell procedures.

It is true that Seebach has recently published a book on portable shell scripting. However, this gives him no chops as regards C code. Furthermore, I audited, as part of my research, his C code, to find astonishingly elementary bugs.

Furthermore, when Seebach posted a one-line strlen() simulator in C on clc this year, it was obviously off by one. He explained his error by reference to his having a learning disorder. He said elsethread that he has a radically different style of learning from normal people, which puts into question his opinions of Schildt. The nature of the disorder is one in which the learner needs information presented literally, without error or even metaphor. For this reason, Seebach wouldn't be able to learn from Schildt, because of Schildt's breezy presentation of code snippets which do not always port to Seebach's environment (Linux).

Ordinary programmers simply change the snippet and thereby learn. They might good-naturedly josh the prof, but only in recent years have the politics of resentment become so harsh that they abuse the professor for making them work a little.

Nobody ever learned programming by rote memory of The Truth, since programming is a social activity. But Seebach wishes to impose this autistic model on everyone, and for this reason allowed his polemic to be the major source for this wikipedia article.

I find it ironic that in defending one author from attack, you are making a much harsher and more personal attack on another. Did you notice that rather than being the major source for this article, the criticism is one sentence? --GRuban (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it ironic and reprehensible, however, the facts show that Seebach seriously misrepresented his standing, or, the author of the wikipedia article was deceived, and assumed the traditional case: that one who's on a standards committee is invited to that committee on the basis of experience and accomplishment. Seebach has freely confessed that this is not the case.

It is unfortunate that I have to disclose these negative facts about Seebach, but this evil is the result of his initial malfeasance, which was to attack someone by name for practices which work in the Microsoft environment.

Brian Kernighan attacked the practice of including nonworking program listings in 1976, in his early book "The Elements of Programming Style", and when I met Brian at Princeton in 1987, I asked him if he'd offended anyone. He said in fact that the authors he had in mind thanked him.

This was because Brian did not name the authors, and this was general practice at the time. Edsger Dijkstra attacked many people but by describing their practice. He said of APL that it created "coding bums" but no where did he say that Ken Iverson was incompetent nor did he try to make "Iverson" a byword and a catchphrase.

But as it happened, Dijkstra was deeply unpopular and paid the price of speaking truth to corporate power. This I think taught the next generation that it's safer to find someone relatively isolated, and kick the shit out of him as if Schildt was personally responsible for the fact that void main() worked on older C compilers from Microsoft, or the poor design of C.

Rather than go to this length, in January of this year, I sent one email to Peter Seebach requesting that we discuss my issues. This email, according to Seebach himself, was discarded and unread, since he had concluded from my literacy alone that I must be some sort of "Internet kook", since "normal" people on the Internet can't write above a low upper bound of complexity. His self-confessed ADHD may also play a role.

This is why things have come to this pass. It's called defense against aggression and it is a human right, whether self-defense or the defense of another. If I am in Seebach's book a kook and a moron, I may as well be hanged for a sheep and a lamb, and document who he really is according to his own admissions. My purpose remains demonstrating that he has no standing if he cannot submit code without newbie errors to clc and is a self-promoter who has built his reputation through the politics of personal destruction.

Keep This is a reasonable article - the concerns about sourcing have already been addressed, and could have been addressed by the nominator instead of trying to slide another deletion in. Editors should not let their personal views on BLPs prevent them from the business of encyclopedia building. Weakopedia (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve refs. There are lots of Ghits out there, and Schildt is very well known in his field and has sold millions of copies of his books, so he is quite clearly notable and the article can be properly sourced. -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there really any need to keep deleting the IP editor's opinion, above? Even if he's a blocked user, the closing admin will be able to take that all into account. As it stands, all we have here is an unproductive edit war. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. It gets tedious cleaning up his crap anyway. Barsoomian (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author of bad C programming books and an infamously terrible one on C++. Notable at the time as an author (his books were unfathomably popular) and still notable today as an example of bad books on programming. If ref improvement is needed, it's probably time to dust off that old pile of Byte or Dr Dobbs in the back of the garage. I'd hope his entire output pre-dated the mass online web. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lead alone gave me enough notability info to vote keep, and it seems well cited. SGGH ^ping! 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivated and literate people never use the phrase "bad book". This is easily shown. If a cultivated and literate person starts to read what he thinks is a bad book, he will not read it, normally, unless he's being paid to review it. But this means that he will have no opportunity that the "bad" book has any value: whether in the case of a novel that resolves apparently insoluble contradictions, or a mathematical book that proves a striking theorem at the last minute.

Herb Schildt's books, of course, are neither. But the basic reasoning applies. If his books suck then the initial reviewers (who now appear to be Summit and Seebach working independently) probably did not do due diligence to realize that Herb was writing for a Microsoft audience, not them or their friends.

In Seebach's case, whether in 1997 or today, he seems to pick up the book and root through it without diligence for what he thinks are either errors (some of which are based on poor design choices in C) or violations of his tics of style. His tirades therefore have no place in a biography of a living person, because they are NNPOV.

In all other cases, the reviewers show a distinct bias against Microsoft, whereas the promotional puffery, of course, is biased against Schildt.

In no case is this about a genuine or important scholarly dispute. The article violates BLP and needs to be removed.

Nobody case about the ill-digested opinions of a bunch of little computer programmers.

Keep - The only criticism is in one sentence which is very well sourced. It doesn't even say what the criticism is which I think is quite remiss. Otherwise it needs clean up so it can be read by people who aren't familiar with C, which can be fixed! Obviously notable. No reason to delete. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In making this determination, I ignored all the overheated rhetoric above, and focused on one straightforward point: this is not a biography. There is virtually no biographical information here, just a list of books he's written, and a single aside about a band in which he played. If this article is kept, it should be moved to Writings of Herbert Schildt, to more accurately reflect its actual subject. *** Crotalus *** 19:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My "rhetoric" is "overheated" because the article is not only poorly sourced, and cannot be properly sourced (because outside of material based on Seebach's NNPOV articles, there is no authoritative analysis of Schildt's "errors"), but also because it harms Schildt.

I realize that in this Randroid environment, convenience store clerks interpret Rand's ban on "altruistic" conduct to also be a ban on common decency (which is something that not even Rand intended). Therefore, claims that Schildt is being harmed have in this toxic environment be translated into "the wikimedia foundation might get sued".

Otherwise, if one makes reference to common decency, one is "Shrill". One is creating Drama. Like a girl.

So: apart from the poor sourcing, and the impossibility of finding a NPOV source, the article threatens wikipedia and the foundation. As if I care: but there it is.

I asked Brian Kernighan via email if he cared to intervene. He replied that he doesn't wish to, of course. But NO material on Schildt can be found that does not originate with Seebach's polemic, and all of Schildt's opponents wish to keep C for Linux use exclusively, which is NNPOV. Therefore I ask, again, that the article be deleted.

Keep. Deletion is often a good idea for problem articles about people who are only just WikiNotable, but Mr Schildt is very WikiNotable, having written so many books and sold so many copies of them. Surely we can bring the article into conformance with our rules and keep it in that state. CWC 09:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how many books he's sold, my concern is that we do not have adequate third-party sources whose subject is Mr. Schildt himself, rather than his works. Even many of the sources on his books are questionable — why are we citing Peter Seebach's self-published website? Since this article is ostensibly a biography, doesn't that violate WP:BLP? Alternatively, as suggested, we could give the article a more accurate name and change its focus. *** Crotalus *** 15:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seebach's site documents Seebach's opinion of a book, and that's how it is cited, in the Reception section. It is not a source for any biographical facts about Schildt. The only thing we need to be sure of is that it really is by Seebach. Do you doubt that? And as for the bio, most of that comes from Schildt's various publishers, who aren't going to say anything bad about him, but there is no reason to think that what they do say is untrue. Barsoomian (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should primarily be based on reliable, third-party sources. If most of the biographical info on Schildt comes from his publishers, it isn't independent or third-party, and we shouldn't have an article at all. As for the Seebach information, WP:SPS says "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." This seems to me to be in violation of that provision. *** Crotalus *** 18:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, WP:BLP (which this part of WP:SPS is part of) applies equally to all articles, not just those called biographies. So if you're writing about a person in an article about his book, you can't use a self-published source from an expert. The converse also holds. If you're writing about a book, in an article about a person, you can. Or are you arguing any criticism of a book is actually a criticism of the author? If so, then you seem to be arguing we basically can't use any self published expert opinions of any TV shows, movies, cars, computers, telephones, computer programs... --GRuban (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm still not clear on why Seebach should be used as a source. Is he "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"? (Serious question, not rhetorical - I had never heard of him before reading this AFD.) We don't seem to have an article on him (and probably shouldn't). *** Crotalus *** 20:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seebach did time on the ANSI C committee. Short of being either K or R, that's about as "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" as it gets. Also Clive Feather took a dislike to Schildt's book (with copious notes thereon) and he's pretty WP:RS on the topic too. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced article. Nominator's concern has been addressed.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BLP concerns have been worked out. Content disputes are not relevant to the author's notability - which has been established. decltype (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a biography, and its sourcing is quite weak. E.g. the lede sentence says 'McGraw-Hill calls the subject "the world's leading programming author"', sourced to cover blurbs of subject's own books. WP:V requires sourcing independent of the subject and that hardly qualifies. Andy Dingley's assessment of the subject's books sounds plausible to me. I never read any of them but I've looked at a few and they seemed basically serviceable but undistinguished (non-"notable" to use the local jargon). Remember in the pre-web era there were a LOT of computer books that were just slapped together and sent to the printer, the way web sites go up today. The most respected C book is probably Harbison and Steele's "C: A Reference Manual" (originally from 1984, several newer editions) and it was always praised for its accuracy (although it had mistakes). The mass market books like Schildt's just weren't comparable and didn't get much notice. I just don't see this as a useful article in its present state and I don't see how to turn it into one. It's about stuff that was barely notable even when it wasn't decades in the past. If it matters, I looked at Nilges' blog rant about the article and the rant is just plain crazy. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schildt was distinguished above other such writers by his name being immortalized in the Jargon File. Though this has been deemed too scurrilous to mention in the article page, it does speak to his notability. Barsoomian (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 18:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources presented are easily enough to show notability. I don't agree with the various comments above that claim that this is not a proper biography. The subject is notable for his writings, so they are, quite rightly, the main focus of the article, in just the same way that our articles about politicians, sportspeople and entertainers write about their work rather than their favourite foods or inside leg measurements. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 1 May 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Russian language in Ukraine. JForget 00:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Russian[edit]

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

The article is mainly original research, single confirming source is radio translation on a subject other than article subject. No significant coverage in reliable sources. windyhead (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge The article itself is very poor, but the topic has just got to be notable. Just need to find sources that have written about the version of the Russian language spoken by people in the Ukraine. These will probably not be in English but that's not a reason to delete. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already Russian language in Ukraine --windyhead (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Russian language in Ukraine. Merge content attributed to Ponomariv if there is a citable source. Cnilep (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No point in duplicating entries. David V Houston (talk) 21:26, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Krasko[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for people or for entertainers. (Contested prod.) – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 22:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and request assistance from Russian-reading Wikipedians to translate the books, articles, and links. Seeing that this individual is all over Russian media, I am willing to believe that a notability in Russian film is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Russian sources appear to be sufficient to pass WP:GNG, just hard to work with. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Nasty[edit]

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

Possible failure of notability criteria. WP:PORNBIO states that actors must have been nominated for notable awards across multiple years, he has only been nominated for two awards in 2006. EuroPride (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no opinion but what on earth does the nomination mean? Are some years more notable than others? Was 2006 a particularly not-notable year? Should we be nominating "2006" for deletion? AndyJones (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - As I said, WP:PORNBIO states that the subject should have been nominated for awards across multipe years. This person was only nominated twice in the year 2006; not in multiple years. EuroPride (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I just noticed I had written "notable awards across notable years" instead of "notable awards across multiple years". Sorry. EuroPride (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PORNBIO as stated by nom. Further, "moderately well known for briefly appearing..." does not compensate. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes BASIC and ANYBIO #1. High name recognition. Article needs work though. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG - PORNBIO is depreciated. Hipocrite (talk) 14:51, 13 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 00:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment PORNBIO is not deprecated quite yet. WP:ANYBIO may apply in this case in conjunction with his being in a mainstream documentary series Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends, and WP:GNG in his being written of in The X factory: inside the American hardcore film industry, Headpress: journal of sex, religion, death, and The Penthouse Erotic Video Guide, as well as a story The Economist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would appear to be a weak delete, although he may cross the inclusion line soon. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No... not a "weak delete"... call it rather a Neutral comment that is hoped might encourage editors toward other considerations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 15:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete News hits on Google are not relevant to the subject at hand. General Google search yields a profile on porn version of IMDb, video sites, among other stuff that is not relevant to this subject of the article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:15, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catalin Partenie[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources which discuss Catalin Partenie directly and in detail. The editor who disputed the prod claims the GNG does not require "directly and in detail", I humbly request that everyone contributing to this discussion read the "significant coverage" bullet point of the GNG. Explodicle (T/C) 15:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 15:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the relevant standard is not the GNG but WP:PROF. Someone selected by both CUP and OUP edit academic works on Plato, and similarly by Northwestern UP, and the author of numerous translations for Plato's major works, is obviously considered in their field as an expert in their subject. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please link to your sources about Catalin Partenie? --Explodicle (T/C) 15:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that he edited "Plato: Selected Myths" for the Oxford University Press (evidence -- or, if you want easy verification of his editorship without detail, look here). There's a very uninformative link about him here and an only slightly less uninformative link here. His CV is here.
Am I convinced he's an authority on Plato? Absolutely. Am I convinced he's notable? Not yet.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced article -- fails WP:BLP. Very few GS hits (h-index of 3), and editing a book does not establish notability: anyone can edit a book -- so fails WP:PROF also. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't yet looked into wider notability, but I must point out that the statement that "anyone can edit a book" published by the Oxford University Press or the Cambridge University Press is utterly ridiculous. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 20 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 15:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the publications, see WorldCat. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Looking over Partenie's CV [17] (pdf), I'm just not seeing the "more notable than the average professor" aspect. There's not much in the way of citation count, the academic rank is not terrifically high for somebody who got his doctorate 12 years ago, there do not appear to be any highly distinguished awards - just the usual run of grants, fellowships, and the like. He might very well get there with time, but not yet, I don't think. Ray^Talk 15:58, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Texas earthquake[edit]

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

Minor earthquake with no injuries or property damage. No indication of notability - there are thousands of earthquakes of this magnitude every year. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Clearly a non-notable event, and actually this could almost be an A1/A3 candidate. --JForget 15:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We should not have articles which give only one fact, since that almost always shows that the subject is not notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just an unusual magnitude for this location. 173.49.136.107 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment is there a source that claims this was of unusual magnitude? it seems to me [[18]] that or higher is not that rare. There seems to me a need for RS establishing this as notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A 4.0 quake shakes the windows in the same way that an idling train might, but that's all, so it's no surprise that there were no injuries. I'm sure there were people who said "what was that?" Notwithstanding that it passes the now-and-here evaluation used for many Wikipedia articles (i.e. Did it happen this morning? Did it happen in the U.S.A.?), this isn't worth it's own article. There are thousands of such tremors every year. To put it in perspective, nobody cares about a 4.0 tremor that happened this morning in Zambia, and nobody cares about a 4.0 tremor that happened in Texas in 1970. Mandsford (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust ^Talk* _Contribs 02:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to 2010 South Texas earthquake --Francesco Betti Sorbelli (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment A page that looks like a fork to keep this on wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It figures, two articles about the same non-notable event. This article gets the blue ribbon for getting created five hours sooner than the other one. Maybe we should redirect that one to this one and then delete both of them. Mandsford (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the otehr page for deletion as well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N; minor earthquakes happen daily, if not hourly, and this one is certainly nothing but a minor earthquake that most people barely noticed. Certainly not a notable earthquake by any standard, nor is its magnitude that rare. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was mentioned in The Houston Chronicle, but there's not enough coverage to pass WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 92.1.64.253 (talk) 01:39, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Delete. GlassCobra 16:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Kate's Birthday Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kate's Birthday Party

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

Attempt by a crowd of enthusiasts, mostly single-purpose accounts, to promote an online event. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:RS, WP:EVENT and WP:N#TEMP andy (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: http://www.dagbladet.no/2010/04/25/kjendis/bursdag/facebook/nettsamfunn/sosiale_medier/11436319/

Count with more articles just like that one turning up quite soon.

Delete Agree with nominator. Non-notable event, no sources other than Facebook, image is probably a copyvio - it really does just look like a crowd of SPAs embarked on an Internet stunt. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment This does seem to be an RS establishing some kind of notability, but it needs more then one source. But I think that not news may come into effect here as well.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as drivel. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 15:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Clearly a non-notable event and could easily be speedied--JForget 15:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy. The growth of this, and the fact it is making mainstream media, means that this AFD should run. Esteffect (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, it is already in the Norwegian news media at Dagbladet. Esteffect (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page has been semi-protected due to removal of AFD template, and the possible security risk (individual's address has been posted). Esteffect (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment A lot of one use IP's voting here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why this page is up for deletion, but due to the exponential growth of attendees in this in the last 24 hours, I think we should delay deleting this page for a while until/unless it becomes clear that this is not going to become a serious meme. If the growth of attendees continues at the same pace this event will become very notable within that time frame, so we don't have to wait long. If the growth rate of attendees begins to slow down and if in 24 hours this has not gained some kind of media attention then I have no problem with deleting this page. I think we should just wait a bit and let this develop first. Ben1220 (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Moved by myself from talk page. Esteffect (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTCRYSTAL. It haqs to be notable now, not in two daysSlatersteven (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or if it gets more coverage merge to Facebook. Note that the real party didn't happen so the title should be more like "Facebook invitation to Kate's party." Anyway not something of lasting importance. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commentits not May 1st yet, though I notice that the articel says the party has been canceld. As such I see no real notability as an event (if it does not happen). I am also beging to suspect that this page is promotional in nature.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite an ever growing body of evidence to the contrary, Wikipedia's not a directory of every unfunny flash-in-the-pan internet meme that ever happened. Encyclopaedia Dramatica is that way. – iride scent 16:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously? And the copyrighted image can go too. Aiken ♫ 16:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The event has now been taken down. Let's just delete this and forget it ever happened. Aiken ♫ 16:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not notable per guidelines. Jasonid (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about Keep, but if a person is found to have invited him or herself to the party and edited the WP article he or she should be banned from WP for ever for WP:COI? (Just kidding. :-) )Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:39, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Oops. By the way, this was a honest mistake. Thanks for all the bad faith accusations. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 23:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Data haven[edit]

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

Promotional article for a site with same name. A google books search finds no references for this supposedly established meaning, but there are plenty of uses as a synonym for /dev/null. Pcap ping 14:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As usual, Pohta is nominating in bad faith. Notice that one stray external link makes him accuse the entire article of being a promotional article, when a simple look through the history - or use of WikiBlame - would have revealed that that link was inserted in December 2009, which is roughly 6 years after the article was created.

I'm also struck that it took more than 7 years for someone graced the article with an AfD; but I guess not a single person before Pohta realized that it was a non-existent concept.

As for the rest of his nomination: I have no idea how he can claim that a Google Book search shows nothing, when I can find dozens of hits. The article specifically cites 2 books!

Oh, and it's not as if one can't equally easily find dozens of media articles covering the concept, especially given the recent proposals by Wikileaks about turning Iceland into a data haven for it.

Books and newspapers aren't enough? Then I toss in legal stuff and a load of scholarly articles.

I've never seen Pohta's 'data haven as synonym for /dev/null', but far be it from me to doubt his claims, so let's toss that on the pile as well.

There, I hope that settles it. Can we snowball close this so Pohta can go AfD some more helpless articles? --Gwern (contribs) 19:08 25 April 2010 (GMT)

keep err this is a well established concept even if producing practical aplications may well be imposible.©Geni 19:24, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rankathon[edit]

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

A rather blatant neologism; Wikipedia does not document the usage of neologisms. The prod was contested by the author. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear WP:NEOLOGISM, does not meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:07, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete both g3 hoax, created by "a dream animation group" -- in other words, it doesn't actually exist. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TMAC[edit]

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

Contested prod. Video game developper with no assertion of notability. Google returns nothing, not even primary sources. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Drano-The Supreme Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:35, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete G8 ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wisconsin–List of Colleges and Schools[edit]

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

Meaningless redirect to a deleted article. Revws (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be anything to delete. But shouldn't an article on a university include a list of its colleges and schools? Are there so many that a list needs to be spun off? Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:02, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted G7 - the author (who is also the subject, it appears) has blanked and requested deletion, and since that account and an IP which is clearly the same person are the only ones to have worked on the article, I have deleted it per their request Black Kite (t) (c) 10:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Ryon[edit]

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

This was created as an autobiographical article about an Ohio political candidate who has run 2 times before gaining about 10% of the vote each time. No significant news coverage in Google archives, he appears to fail our notability criterion for WP:POLITICIAN and the article suggests no other reason for notability and indeed provides no evidence for notability as a politician. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Frazier Glenn Miller Jr.. Nominator wanted to merge, the material has been merged now, no need to keep this open. Fences&Windows 10:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Miller (activist)[edit]

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

Based on the existence of the article Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., which was written nine days previous, this article began its existence in a state of redundancy. Merge is perhaps a better formalized option than Delete, although I'm frankly unclear of how the mechanics of a merger would be specifically handled.

Comment I have taken it upon myself to transfer all useful information from the nominated article over to Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., thus arguably making a Mergeing of the two articles redundant as well. So perhaps Delete is now the more appropriate course. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge to one article is good - nice work. A11 speedy delete now on this duplicate article -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to preserve edit history and as a plausible search term Polarpanda (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Wikipedia:Merge and delete (deleting is no longer an option once you've merged the content).--Chaser (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worth a mention in United States Senate election in Missouri, 2010. As noted, this "White-in candidate" is already covered in Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr., where he gets coverage because he actually did get on the ballot 25 years ago in North Carolina. He got 23 votes in his last write-in campaign, and I wish him the same amount of success this time around. Mandsford (talk) 23:05, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOVA: The Seven[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book by a non-notable author. Article consists almost entirely of an overly-detailed plot summary. Amazon book ranking is almost 3-millionth place, and if one excludes Amazon, wikipedia, facebook, PBS, and the word "vita" (which appears in a large number of unrelated hits), there are exactly 8 Google results about this book. Fails both WP:BK and WP:GNG. --Darkwind (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the Mutacene Chronicles characters. --Darkwind (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, the amazon links says this was published via CreateSpace, meaning it was self-published. Clubmarx (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , no holdings at all in WorldCat DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 22:39, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Goth[edit]

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

Non-notable company; no reliable, independent secondary sources. Miracle Pen (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no attempt at asserting notability, probably would have qualified for speedy.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.--Grahame (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:26, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New England Orienteering Club[edit]

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

Non-notable club. Only 400 members. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quite aside that nowhere in WP:ORG do I see a criterion concerning how the number of members affects an organization's notability, Google News has one hundred and one articles concerning this club. While many are of course brief notes and calendar entries, a number are not, and these four articles alone from the earliest hits (from the Boston Globe [19], Providence Journal [20] [21] and Boston Herald [22]) establish significant coverage. I spent more time typing this paragraph than was needed to research these hits. Ravenswing 09:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem rather wordy. Why not just say "here are four reliable sources that I found"? Using a mocking, condescending tone isn't very helpful and seems to insinuate I'm either an idiot or acting in bad faith. If there are reliable sources, the article will certainly be kept. Whether it will actually be improved with those references remains to be seen. More than likely, the references you found will be left in this AfD after it is closed rather than integrated into the article, thereby convincing people who know nothing about Orienteering clubs in the Northeast US that it's an actual club and merits an article. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting that you filed this AfD without making, as deletion policy requires, any attempt to find valid sources. It is neither idiocy nor prima facie bad faith to fail to follow deletion policy, but perhaps you could explain why you didn't do so, as well as upon what grounds you feel this group is not notable. Ravenswing 02:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my haste in listing this without a full explanation. I also could not find what I believed to be "significant" coverage (Accounting4Taste seems to agree with me on this), although people may have differing opinions on this. I hope that this discussion will help resolve that issue and if the article is kept I will be glad to try and improve it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The four citations noted above don't appear to me to demonstrate notability; they seem like minor coverage on a purely local level and I can't agree that they "establish significant coverage". When an organization's name indicates that it is restricted to a small geographic area by its very nature, I'd be looking for some evidence that the group has notability outside that area. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on the condition that it can be expanded from its current stub status. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:56, 16 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 00:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete or merge So far it all seems (woth the exception of fame by association) all local stuff. I would change to keep if more sources could be found extablishing more then local fame.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 06:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - news articles and other sources can be found and added very easily. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. Size is not everthing. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article clearly says that it has more than 400 members. In the 1980s, for example, it had over 700. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I discount the suggestion that the subject requested deletion - he did not - and accord less weight to the arguments relying solely on WP:GNG, as WP:BLP1E, being policy, must be accorded much greater weight. As far as Silverseren suggests that there has been consistent coverage over time, their argument is refuted by Rankiri and Nuujinn. I give little weight to the subject's belief that he does not satisfy our inclusion criteria, though that belief appears to be consistent with the general consensus of the debate. Tim Song (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Chen[edit]

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

Raymond Chen does not believe that he meets Wikipedia notability guidelines and after reviewing the article, I tend to agree with his assessment. Most of the sources are web-based (the majority of citations are to his own work) and those few that are third-party don't seem to rise to the level needed under WP:N and WP:BLP. *** Crotalus *** 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue.Silver seren^C 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, he's wrong then. After a quick search, I managed to find these sources, which i've added to the article.

"The spammographer" - ITWorldCanada

"Microsoft Blogger Tracks 7 Years Of Spam" - InformationWeek

"Microsoft man collects spam" - The Inquirer

"Blogger: Spam explosion peaked last year" - Media Life Magazine

"Windows Vista drops support for old DVD drives" - Ars Technica

"How long does spam keep, anyway?" - CNET

They are enough to establish notability for him and the work he does. Though I do agree with his point about Ginsberg. It's a shame there. Silver seren^C 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over these sources and none of them contain any significant biographical information. They simply mention Chen in passing. We can't write an article based on stuff like this; that constitutes original research via synthesis. We should especially not do this for people who have themselves said that they don't think they meet Wikipedia notability requirements. *** Crotalus *** 13:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first three links are entirely about him. Information on the work that he has done and is working on counts as biographical information in the case of his achievements. The sources are enough to prove that he is notable, as they are not trivial mentions (which is about a single sentence by Wiki definition). Silver seren^C 21:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Information Week article is titled "Microsoft employee Raymond Chen has compiled unique evidence of the explosion of spam." So yeah, its about him. Dream Focus 09:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Information Week article amounts to nine sentences (of which three are "Why save every spam? Good question. Chen's answer?") on TechWebNews six years ago. The other sources are a brief mention on "Ry's Blog" and similar highly passing references of the sort you would expect for someone perhaps most remarkable as the subject of his office's humorous "Dress Like Raymond Day" circa 1995. This is just not a person of notability sufficient to sustain an article in an encyclopedia of global scope. I appreciate Silverseren's contributions, but frankly they only serve to highlight the fact -- as Raymond Chen himself is aware -- that he has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:31, 16 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 00:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The point about Justice Ginsberg is a valid one - and I've long thought we should have Featured Topics for Presidents and Supreme Court justices, to push those to Featured levels of quality. On point, there are multiple sources about Mr. Chen, so it would appear that we have some modicum of notability. Enough to keep? I think so, if barely. The funny thing is this - if Mr. Chen's article is kept, and he comments on it, and his comments are picked up by other sources, it's possible that reliable sources discussing the notability of the subject will actually increase the apparent notability of the subject. Which is just recursive enough to be amusing. Oh, bugger, I've gone cross-eyed. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article consist mainly of trivia scrapped from various MS-related blogs. There was a brief burst of news about him in several IT venues for his collection of spam (linked above); at best that's wp:blp1e. Thoroughly fails wp:author and wp:anybio otherwise. The subject seems to request deletion as well. Pcap ping 16:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It surely wasn't a brief burst of news. There's been consistent coverage of him for six years. And him not meeting WP:AUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO does not make him non-notable, as the page itself says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."

And he certain meets the GNG, so the article passes notability policy. What other reasons do you have for deletion? Silver seren^C 18:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And he is most certainly not asking for deletion, he was just stating that he was surprised he had an article on Wikipedia, as he doesn't consider himself notable (or not as notable as some people). As the article was before, it certainly looked that way, but the new sources show otherwise. Please do not misconstrue what someone else says to serve your own opinion. Silver seren^C 18:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made to the article. Brad 21:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sorry, but if this is the improved version, it must have been something awful before. Most of the references are primary sources, passing mention in a few decent sources, and a list of external references with similar and a few paragraphs regarding his spam collection from 2004. Looking at this brief burst of news| this, I see a more passing references from blogs and articles, and some web search engine generated pages. No significant coverage beyond his spam collection. I think one event applies here. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 06:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is not a persuasive argument. So far, I only see a bunch of trivial mentions and some minor WP:BLP1E coverage of the subject's vast spam collection. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. — Rankiri (talk) 17:29, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rough consensus is that the current sourcing in the article is enough to adequately establish notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif[edit]

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

Not notable, no independent coverage, article is a summarization of primary court records, appears to individually fail Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) and WP:BIO , imo the Guantanamo issue is notable but this does not inherit notability on to the minor players in the story. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per above reasoning. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable third-party sources, no article. That is what our notability guidelines say, for good reasons. Pantherskin (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep based on good sources, involved in major world events of permanent historical importance. I thought we had settled a good while ago that every Gitmo detainee where here was something to say other than the mere fact of his being there was worth an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm inclined to agree with DGG that this man is notable in the sense of being "worthy of note". I'm comfortable with the sourcing; the primary/secondary source distinction is not easy in cases like this but I consider that many of the source are actually secondary sources in respect of the factual matters they support. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- No offense, but this reference to this wikidocument implies a serious misconception -- it cites Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), as if Fahd al Sharif were merely a criminal suspects. The reason why we don't have millions of articles on ordinary criminal suspects and ordinary convicted felons is that we have very well understood criminal justice systesm, and almost every suspect and felon follows a well understood pattern. Their progress through the system is routine, mundane, unremarkable, unextraordinary, except in the rare cases that deviates from the pattern in a significant manner, that individual might rise to notability. When DNA evidence shows a convicted felon was innocent after all that might make them notable. When they are beaten, like Rodney King, or escape, or are released early, like Willie Horton they might rise to notability.

Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) is not applicable, Fahd al Sharif was not a criminal suspect. He was held for over five years without ever facing charges. This is extremely unusual.

Aren't POWs routinely held sithout charge? Yes, last century millions of POWs were held, without charge, until the wars they were captured in ended. But Fahd al Sharif, like the other Guantanamo captives was stripped of the protections of the Geneva Conventions in a highly controversial manner.

So, Fahd al Sharif was held, for five years, without charge, and without the authorization of the Geneva Conventions to hold combatants without charge, why is that a big deal? Haven't a hundred million individuals simply been secretly locked up, and disappeared in secret prisons in living memory? Yes, if you include the Soviet Gulag, Nazi Germany's concentration camps, and the Gulag like camps in other nations there may have been 100 millions individuals locked up in secret camps. Of those 100 million 99,999.221 were held by totalitarian dictatorships, who made no effort to honor the rule of law. But the USA does honor the rule of law.

The nomination characterizes the references as "primary court records". The Summary of Evidence memos drafted by OARDEC were not court records. The Tribunals were not courts of law. Nor were they "primary references". The summaries memos fulfill all the criteria to be recognized as secondary sources. They are independent from those who originally gathered the information they contain, and from the subject of they contain. The authors of the memos were charged with the responsibility to intelligently understand, collate, analyze, determine the credibility, and resolve ambiguity and contradiction of reports from half a dozen separate civilian and military agencies. Geo Swan (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This man is individually not notable at all. All of this is coatracking the bigger picture on to him. A list woud be plenty, there are I am sure a couple of independently notable Guantanamo detainees, where there has been some individual independent coverage of their cases but the vast majority of them are not notable, the event, people locked up without trial, ok that is notable but the individuals such as this one are not. So criminal acts is not applicable, what part of the guidelines is being used to assert notability on this individual? The individual is not worthy of note as one editor suggests, it is the event that is worthy of note. If is has been as DGG suggests, previously discussed and support was that being a Guantanamo detainee is notable in itself could I have a link to the previous discussion. This would be enough for this person, in a list.. Fahd al Sharif was held in Quantanamo , for five years, without charge, and without the authorization of the Geneva Conventions. I am sure at least that could be cited to an independent reliable source. Off2riorob (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is well-referenced and subject is notable. The fact there are no English language media reports on him is not surprising (although I believe Andy Worthington wrote about him) since he's in Saudi Arabia. I had similar issues trying to write an article about the Beauharnois scandal from a century ago...all the good references are in French, not English...hell, just compare the "best article possible from the English sources" with the article on the French wikipedia (where I believe it may even be Featured status). In time, we may come across a fluent Arabic editor who will point us to the newspaper announcements when he was repatriated, but there is no need to "do so within the next week or the article is deleted", there is no shortage of wonderful articles on Wikipedia that use court documents as their primary source. Take a look at Patrick J. Whelan for example, most media outlets published nothing other than "he was hanged for the murder of a politician", but through using the (online) court transcript, suddenly his life is fleshed out and the article is 1000% longer and more helpful. I see nothing to indicate al-Sharif is anything different. People, in bad faith, try and twist "helpful guidelines" into being loopholes through which they can delete articles they find personally offensive. Try watchlisting Pearl necklace or something similar, if you want evidence of that. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 13:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the notability guidelines are you asserting applies to this person? None of the articles that you have linked to are similar in any way? Who are you talking about in your comments about "People, in bad faith, try and twist "helpful guidelines" into being loopholes through which they can delete articles they find personally offensive" ?Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines which part of notability does this individual attain?Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of references confirming the information there. Lot of valid information to fill the article with. This person is of importance to the historical records. If someone who spoke his native language could search for news mention of him, they'd probably turn up more. Dream Focus 00:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the notability policy is he is important to the historical record ? none at all, I would just like someone to point me to the part of policy that asserts this person is notable, I don't think that there could well by lots of citations in his own language really cuts it, no one as yet here has shown me a good reason within policy that supports the assertion that this person is notable. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful not to conflate "policy" with "guidelines". There is no policy on notability, only guidelines that create "presumptions" of notability. Those guidelines are not exhaustive.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, he doesn't actually show any notability but those guidelines are not exhaustive? You say in your keep comment, "this man is notable in the sense of being "worthy of note". So that is opinion and not really guidelines or policy? Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:N (only a guideline) defines notability to be "worthy of note". So that test is called for by the guidelines. Notability will often involve value judgements; the WP:GNG is not a set rule that has to be robotically applied in every AfD: it explicitly says it’s a guideline, and it explicitly says that it only gives rise to a presumption of notability. Now I think the WP:GNG is important and call for its application in the very large majority of AfDs. But in this case, I happen to think the subject is notable for the reasons of his incarceration and the information about his biography is verified. So even if he doesn't meet the WP:GNG (which as I've said above he probably still does), I still consider him notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of coverage in secondary sources indicate lack of notability. To the extent there is any notability, it's only for one event.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 06:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep There does seem to be a fair amount of sources, but I would like to see more.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a BLP built from primary sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, and some other relevant and cogent arguments, including User:Mkativerata's. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:22, 1 May 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Frankly, this is right on the line between keep and no consensus for me, as many of the keep comments were either weakly in favor of retaining the article, or used arguments to avoid. However, it would be devaluing their arguments and numbers too much to discount them completely. I would suggest that better sourcing will ultimiately be required of this article should it be nominated in the future. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani Chinese cuisine[edit]

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

There's nothing called "Pakistani Chinese" cuisine that exists, in my opinion. I expect a prod to be summarily rejected (as the editor who created this article has edited the article quite precociously), hence the AfD. Request an AfD delete... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found some sources on Google about Pakistani Chinese cuisine and also the author has placed one reference so far. Lets wait to see what more the author does to the article. Dwayne was here! ^talk 17:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly (if possible) show any of these sources you've found which mention "Pakistani Chinese cuisine"? Thanks ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Pakistani Chinese cuisine refers to Chinese cuisine as cooked and consumed in Pakistan". So we should also have a Greek Brazilian clothing and a Macedonian Samoan music? I see 17 results on Google. fetchcomms☛ 23:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the title suggested some type of fusion between Pakistani and Chinese cuisine, this article is about the availability of Chinese food within the borders of Pakistan. I don't see anything that shows that this is different than Chinese food served anywhere else in the world. Before someone plays the WP:BIAS card, I'll say that if someone were to write an article called "Chinese food in the United States" or "Chinese food in the United Kingdom", deletion would be equally appropriate there as well. Mandsford (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, American Chinese cuisine? See, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS! Run away! cab (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running! (Which usually happens after I eat Chinese anyway). OK, ya got me there, cabbie. Still, there has been some effort on the part of the American Chinese cuisine article to show how it differs from "Chinese" Chinese cuisine. Maybe the fortune cookie message is written in Urdu, and maybe they don't have Moo Shu pork. At the moment, I don't see anything that beyond a definition of "Chinese food served in Pakistan". Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the other page also might run with us for AfD. Might be OR; the three links that have been provided as RS - one doesn't open, of the remaining two, none have any references of Pakistani... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful and notable cuisine article. Has got good information. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are not "notable", topics are. Topics are proven to be so by pointing to reliable sources. Which no one has done here. cab (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This article can be improved. The article is supposed to have information about Pakistani Chinese cuisine. Some useful things would be like localised recipes perhaps..till now, I'm holding for a weak keep. Mar4d (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To me, the article tells nothing other than that Chinese food is available in Pakistan. The one reference seems to be about Chinese food in the Pakistani community in Saudi Arabia, and the external link is to a blog that tells me nothing more. Peridon (talk) 20:32, 16 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) 19:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep and expand.No reason to delete an improvable article. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What reliable sources would you like us to use to improve it? cab (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a verifiable and notable topic. Stub needs work and sources. Sounds tasty, too. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if some of the people who come on here claiming "notable!" "improvable!" would actually do some of the hard work of, you know, finding real sources (and not just someone's random blog posts and webpages). I restubbed the article and then located about 1.5 sources (two articles apparently based on the same wire report, with different details), and that still hasn't convinced me there's a real encyclopedia topic here, as opposed to "there's some Chinese restaurants in Pakistan" (a factoid which Chinese people in Pakistan already tells us). cab (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Second the opinion of cab above. While Bearian finds the topic tasty :) that might not be enough to keep up to the notability issue. If notability can be supported by RS, no issues here. But till the time that doesn't happen, 'keep' calls would find it hard to reach consensus. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete this article. It talks about the most popular foreign type of food in the country. Rana A.R (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chinese cuisine talks about this topic. There's almost zero information here. cab (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed.. notable topic. Acejet (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability has been proven. I spent days looking for sources and found barely anything. And I find it rather suspicious that the two editors above, both of whom had been away for weeks/months [23][24], suddenly came back within two minutes of each other to vote "keep" here. cab (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- cab, i haven't been away for months - i have an IP address which i frequently use. Also, the reason why I think this article is notable is because when you type "Pakistani Chinese" on google, there are a number of search suggestions that come up i.e. Pakistani Chinese chicken recipe, Pakistani Chinese soup, Pakistani Chinese rice etc. This suggests that there have to be ghits on Google that reflect. 123.211.170.121 (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google hits do not prove that a topic is encyclopedic. Which of these search results are actually on-topic reliable sources that we can use to write an encyclopedia article, as opposed to someone's random self-published recipe websites or keyword-stuffing spam? cab (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be interested to hear more from Rana A.R and Acejet to support their opinions as to the popularity of the subject and its notability. If they or the IP address can provide decent ghits, I'll be happy to look at them and reconsider my !vote. Till then, I'm considering cooking a North West English Chinese dish for my tea... Peridon (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 06:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis does not seem to have any notabilioty, I wouold vote delete if no sources can be found establishying this as a widely recognosed cuisine style. All I have found are paghe4s about chinese food cooked by Pakistanis.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if a weak keep. http://books.google.com/books?id=GQTABKAGaVgC&pg=PA118#v=onepage&q&f=false "With arrival of Chinese immigrants, many cities have restaurants offering a Pakistani-style Chinese cuisine." What is it that makes Chinese cuisine "Pakistani-style" Is it spicing? Is it the way it is served? I'm just on a drive by hit.... Gzuufy (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For notability to be proven, reliable sources which are verifiable and which make 'more than a trivial' mention of the topic need to exist. Till now, in 20 days, 'not one' of the 'keep' voters have been able to give 'even one' reliable exhaustive source to prove notability. In such a case, I retain my delete vote. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as bad as you think. The restaurant link clearly takes us to a well known Pakistani-Chinese restaurant in the UK, and the personalities who have dined in there prove the existence of this cuisine and its popularity not only in the country, but overseas too. Mar4d (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Chicken Manchurian is an Indo-Pakistani Chinese dish. Mar4d (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mar4D. In the same manner as I have requested everybody else who wanted to keep the article, might I request you also to kindly show me which reliable source would you be referring to here? I'm sorry for asking but the fact is that none of the others, including you, have shown any reliable source out here in your discussions. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 13:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've seen South Asians eat Chicken Manchurian before Mar4d (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani-Chinese food...if that's still not good enough to prove the existence of Pakistani-Chinese food, then I don't know what is Mar4d (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not trying to prove existence, we are trying to find reliable secondary sources such as newspapers or academic articles which analyse the subject. Random self-published recipe websites aren't helpful in that regard. cab (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mar4d, the source(s) you've shown above - both from a site called khanapakana.com - are not reliable sources as they're owned by an advertisement corporation. Is there any reliable source you might have to prove notability? Even one? I'll be more than eager to help keep the article 'if' such a reliable source proving notability exists. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:12, 3 May 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per WP:RELIST, two relistings is the maximum; this is heading for a keep anyway. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Master DeRose[edit]

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

I can find no reliable sources in English for this person. I know that there might be more in Portuguese, but I'm not sure if any of the sources used are reliable. The fact that this is being created on April Fool's Day, being edited by a huge number of brand new editors, gives me pause. At best, this is a BLP concern, at worst, it's a hoax. Woogee (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add SwáSthya Yôga to this AfD. Woogee (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of DeRose Method students, who is helping to create this page. Everything that is written on this page was based on his(Master DeRose) books, written in Portuguese and Spanish. It's very easy to find all the sources that we used to create it. Only need someone that speaks Portuguese or Spanish. Only is not fair allowing putting in English Wiki writers that have books written in English. All the world communicates in English. I am trying to convince that I only put the truth on this page. Regards and I appreciate all your understanding. Pacifici - London —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacifici2010 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing the article based on his books is an improper use of sourcing. Please see WP:BLP and WP:RS. And why, all of a sudden, have so many of his students shown up here? Is he or someone else recruiting them? Woogee (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Woogee,

I am just trying to speak about someone that I know profoundly for more than 8 years. I have read all of his 25 books(some sold out) and did tens of workshop in several countries. I did't copy nothing from his books, I only based on them. There is no more trustful source than books. Do you agree?

Please, any question that you want to know I'd love to answer, such as any source that you wish to know. By the way, what about "someone else recruiting them?" that is very offensive, and doesn't make any sense.

If you haven't found yet, there is more than 200 schools abroad the world that use his Method. As Pilates schools, for exemple.

Regards,Pacifici —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacifici2010 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC) --Pacifici2010 (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books written by the subject are not reliable. Anybody can write anything they want. Woogee (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an April fools joke. All master derose books are available online for fee at uni-yoga.com if you would like to see them in case they don't sell them in your countey. As for books bou being reliable, if they are not then what is? Thee are also links to various reowned Brazilian established television stations that have carried out inteviews on master DeRose. If you see on the the wiki there is also a link in the acclaim section where you can see all the awards, and recognitions master DeRose has been awarded by the Brazilian govenment. He is an extreamly important persob and only because all information regarding Him is in Spanish or portugese not many prole know about him in the Anglo Saxon world and we believe this should change. The reason so many people have probably added to his new English page is because they are happy to share and spread knowledge about him, as he has thousands students in various DeRose method schools thoughhout the world. I would strongly suggest you get someone that speaks portugese or Spanish to watch the inteviews and learn a bit about master DeRose before taking any steps to erase this wiki, which is all 100% truth and a biography of maybe one of the great thinkers of our time at the level of Nelson mandela, but whom is unknown for a great part of the world only because of the barriers of language. Andrea Mandiola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.28.196 (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a request for a Portuguese editor and offered to help. However, I have no idea how to report on my 'findings'. I have posted a brief summary on the talk page of the user who posted the request. --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Testimonial from OrdemMeritoIndiasOrientais
Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais certifies the truthfullness of the statements below, published on Wikipedia about writer and educator DeRose. Ordem do Mérito das Índi--OrdemMeritoIndiasOrientais (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)as Orientais is a not-for-profit, non-political, non-religious cultural institution that was officially created in 2008, in the city of Penafiel, Portugal, with the purpose of: - acknowledging public recognition to various individuals and institutions with outstanding contribution in the national and foreign cultural, social and philantropic areas; - promoting India's ancient cultural and philosophical inheritance; - establishing relevant links within the India-Brazil-Portugal cultural circuit; All these actions are publically and officialy marked by the attribution of honorary medals and decorations, and by the organization of several cultural events. The foundation act of this institution was honoured by the presence and the official support of the Portuguese Ministry of Culture, the Health Services Secretary of State, Dr. Manuel Pizarro, the Júlio Resende Foundation (Júlio Resende is a woldwide renowned Portuguese painter) and the Mayor of the city of Penafiel, Dr. Alberto Santos. Among the events put forward by Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais as a tribute to DeRose, we would like to mention two in particular: DeRose Culture and DeRose Gala, two annual events made in Portugal, consisting of a series of cultural events, including exhibitions and artistic performances related to ancient India’s culture and philosophy. The 2008 edition of the DeRose Gala featured an Exhibition/Installation based on one of DeRose’s books (Sútras – Máximas de Lucidez e Êxtase) – see the vídeo presentation at: http://www.memoriamedia.net/dossiers/sutras_imagens/dossier_expo/sutras_expo.html. The Exhibition which took place at the Museu Municipal de Penafiel, which was officially nominated for the EMYA 2010 (European Museum of the Year Award), which awards each year the museums that significantly contribute to cultural development on their specific area of expertise and to European cultural exchange. These year’s editions will be specially dedicated to celebrating DeRose’s Golden Jubilee. This way we will be marking the 50 year mastership of this worldwide renowned writer, educator and philosopher with a special tribute during the DeRose Gala 2010, for which several institutions and individuals were invited. Already for DeRose’s 25 year mastership celebration a commemorative medal was released in Portugal to mark that significant date. These events welcome yearly some of the biggest international authorities on Ancient Yôga and also a few hundred participants coming from Portugal, Brazil, Spain, France, Italy, United Kingdom and Germany.[reply] As per our official invitation, DeRose joined Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais as Grand Master, which very much honours this institution. In that post he awarded several individuals in 2008 and 2009, such as: - Júlio Resende (worldwide renowned painter) and the Júlio Resende Foundation - Journalist and writer António Mateus - Dr. Manuel Pizarro (Health Services Secretary of State, member of the Portuguese Republic’s government) - Prof. Giuseppe Mea (representative of the Italian community in Portugal). As referred in DeRose’s Historic, between years 2001 and 2002 he was acknowledged as Master in Yôga and Honoris Causa doctorate (Notorious knowledge in Yôga / non-academic) by Universidade Lusófona de Lisboa and by Universidade do Porto (Portugal). The prestige he has gathered throughout the years for his honest and anti-commercial posture has found an echo in the international media and is materialized by the cultural support of various official institutions, like the Indian Embassy in Brazil and Portugal. One of the most recent interviews to DeRose was made in 2009 by Portuguese journalist and writer António Mateus. It was released on a DVD entitled “Conversas com Rumo”. The following caption languages are currently available: spanish, german, italian, The english version will soon be released (http://www.uni-yoga.org/entrevista_derose_tv.php). Also in April 2009 DeRose was interviewed by Portuguese State TV Channel TV2. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqHVm2u1T6I). On May 2007 he was the special guest of Portuguese TV show “Páginas Soltas”, hosted by Bárbara Guimarães http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T0pEOayeCc). António Mateus started his career as a reporter in the O Globo newspaper, in 1982. He worked in the News Agencies NP and Lusa and he headed both their delegations in Maputo and Johanesburg from 1986 to 2003. He collaborated several times with BBC, Voice of America, Portuguese radio broadcast station RDP, Visão and Expresso (two of the most relevant Portuguese magazines and newspapers). He worked for the three Portuguese TV channels before joining RTP’s board (the public TV channel) in 1996, as Information and Program Coordinator of RTP Africa. He was the first Communication Advisor for CPLP (Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries), Managing Director-founder of Focus magazine, RTP’s International Politics Editor and, as of today, Editor for two major TV news shows, Telejornal and Jornal 2. During the 16 years he spent in southern Africa as a reporter, he ensured daily coverage of the developments on Angola and Mozambique’s civil wars and the subsequent peace endeavors. He also closely accompanied and reported all the negotiations for the Cuban withdrawal from Angola, Namibia’s independence process and the end of apartheid in South Africa, among several other relevant media issues. While he worked as a news correspondent in South Africa, he interviewed tens of world notorious individuals, like the Nobel prize awarded Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and Frederik de Klerk. He closely accompanied the first six years of Nelson Mandela’s life after being released from captivity. These experiences were the starting point for António Mateus’ two books: "Homens vestidos de Peles Diferentes" (Ulmeiro) e "Selva Urbana" (Colibri). For more information on writer and journalist António Mateus: http://selvaurbana.blogs.sapo.pt. The above text is the short English version of his profile, taken from the blog. Ten of DeRose’s 25 literary works were published in Portugal: Tudo sobre Yôga Origens do Yôga Antigo Mitos e Verdades Encontro com o Mestre Eu me lembro… Alternativas de relacionamento afectivo Chakras e kundaliní Sútras – Máximas de Lucidez e Êxtase Quando é preciso ser forte and Tratado de Yôga (in Sanskrit: Yôga Shástra), the world’s most comprehensive book on Yôga ever published, in the whole history of Yôga. It comprises 58 breathing exercises, 32 mantras, 27 kriyás, 52 concentration and meditation exercises, 108 mudrás and their correspondant pictures, and over 2.000 physical techniques (ásanas) and their correspondant photos. This book is a classic. It teaches a peculiar, far reaching subject, which is treated in an accurate and elegant language, as never seen before in this publishing field. DeRose’s Tratado deYôga is a canonical masterpiece when it comes to dealing with the millenary philosophy of Yôga. DeRose has been researching and teaching for 50 years, in a continuous struggle to rescue the Ancient Yôga’s true essence, without ever giving way to modern trends that tend to simplify, adapt, westernize or mix this noble cultural inheritance with other proposals. This masterpiece was made with over 200 collaborations, improvements and additions. We replaced the two thousand, one hundred and sixteen ásanas photo file by a new one with higher definition, we inserted more varied photos, we revised the text, we added footnotes, we included more information and instructions wherever there was available space. We enhanced a few paragraphs, we ameliorated some of the test replies, we updated the recommended bibliography, as well as the History of Yôga in Brazil, we chiseled some of the pages’ layout in order to make them more didactical or more aesthetic, we perfected the cover so as to make it more elegant and the title clearer, and, finally, we couldn’t help adding 30 new pages. Tratado de Yôga has been commended by the Chairman of the Yôga Federation of India, M. S. Viswanath, who stated: “This book is the monumental contribution to this century’s Yôga and the most priceless gift to the forthcoming’s one”. The book includes also the statements of several Ambassadors of India in Brazil and Portugal, together with the cultural support of those Embassies. For more information on Tratado de Yôga: http://www.tratadodeyoga.com For more information on Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais: http://www.ordemmeritoindiasorientais.eu http://www.ordemmeritoindiasorientais.eu/doc/ For more information on writer, educator and philosopher DeRose: www.uni-yoga.org www.uni-yoga.org/blogdoderose www.uni-yoga.org/blogdoderose/comendas-e-condecoracoes/ With our most respectful salutations Luís Lopes Presidente da Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais DeRose’s Historic and Trajectory DeRose is an Honoris Causa Doctorate, Notorious Knowledge, Commendation-awarded by several cultural and humanitarian institutions, Counsellor of the Order of Parliament Members of Brazil, Counsellor of the Brazilian Art, Culture and History Academy and Counsellor of the Latin-American Art Academy. He has accomplished 50 years as an educator, of which 24 years were spent travelling to India. During his journeys he attended countless schools, monasteries and other cultural institutions, and in all of them he endeavored to master his knowledge on hindu philosophy. Here is a brief overview of his career trajectory: 1960: He began teaching in a respectful philosophical society. 1964: He founded the Instituto Brasileiro de Yôga. 1969: He published his first book (Prontuário de Yôga Antigo), which was belauded by Ravi Shankar himself, by Master Chiang Sing and by other reputed authorities. 1975: Already consecrated as a truthful teacher, he raised the necessary support to found União Nacional de Yôga (Uni-Yôga), the first institution to congregate teachers and schools of all types of Yôga, without discrimination. It was União Nacional de Yôga who started the union, ethics and mutual respect movement among the professionals in that teaching area. Since then, the institution has grown widely and today has hundreds of schools in just about the whole of Brazil, and teachers in Argentina, Chile, Portugal, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Hawai, Indonesia, Canada, U.S.A., Australia and other countries. 1978: He led the campaign to create and promote the first bill to regulate the Yôga teacher professional status, which set in motion a few heated and lively debates across the country. From the 70s on, he introduced the University Extension Courses to form Yôga teachers in almost all Federal, State and Catholic Universities. 1980: He started administering courses in Indian territory and giving classes to Yôga teachers in Europe. 1982: He put together and conducted the First Brazilian Yôga Congress. Still in 82 he released the first teacher-orientation book, the Guia do Instrutor de Yôga, and the first translation of Pátañjali’s Yôga Sútra ever made by a Brazilian Yôga teacher. Yôga Sútra is the most relevant book on Classic Yôga. Unfortunately, the more Prof. DeRose stood out, the more he became the target of a merciless persecution made by those who felt harmed by his clarification campaign. 1994: When accomplishing 20 years of travelling to India, he founded the First Yôga University of Brazil and the International Yôga University in Portugal. 1997: He launched the foundations of the Federal Yôga Council and the National Union of Yôga Teaching Professionals. 2000: He celebrated his 40th anniversary as a reputed Yôga teacher and researcher. In the subsequent years, as follows, he was awarded many honorary titles by several cultural and humanitarian institutions. 2001 and 2002: Master in Yôga and Honoris Causa doctorate (Notorious knowledge in Yôga / non-academic) by FATEA – Faculdades Integradas Teresa d’Ávila (SP), by Universidade Lusófona de Lisboa (Portugal), by Universidade do Porto (Portugal), by Universidade de Cruz Alta (RS), by Universidade Estácio de Sá (MG), by Faculdades Integradas Coração de Jesus (SP) and by the Curitiba City Hall (PR). Commendation of the Ordem do Mérito de Educação e Integração by the Sociedade Brasileira de Educação e Integração. 2003: Commendation award by the Brazilian Academy of Art, Culture and History. 2004: Knight’s degree, by the Ordem dos Nobres Cavaleiros de São Paulo, acknowledged by the Commander-in-Chief of the Nineth of July Cavalry Regiment, of the São Paulo State Military Police. 2006: Tiradentes Medal by the Legislative Assembly of the Rio de Janeiro State. Peace Medal, by ONU Brazil. Honoris Causa doctorate by the Câmara Brasileira de Cultura, by Universidade Livre da Potencialidade Humana and by several other cultural institutions. Historical and Cultural Merit Diploma (Grand Officer degree). He was also appointed as Counsellor of the Order of Parliament Members of Brazil. 2007: Honorary Associate Member of the Rotary Club. Paul Harris’ Medal of the Rotary Foundation (Rotary International). International Medal of the United Nations and American States Veterans. Academic Cross by the Federação das Academias de Letras e Artes do Estado de São Paulo “for meritory and uplifting actions on behalf of the Nation’s development”. 30th January: Moção de Votos de Júbilo e Congratulações by the São Paulo City Hall (RDS 3059/2006). 27th March: Voto de Louvor e Congratulações by the Paraná State Legislative Assembly “for relevant services rendered”. December: Marshal Falconière’s Medal. 2008: Láurea D. João VI, included in the celebration of the 200 years of the Harbour Opening. 18th February (considered as Yôga Day by state law in thirteen Brazilian states) Title of São Paulo’s Citizen, by the São Paulo City Hall. March: Omnium Horarum Homo Diploma of the Civil Defense, attributed by the governor of the São Paulo State, José Serra, “for his commitment towards the humanitarian cause”. Peace Cross of the II World War Veterans. Merit Medal of the Brazilian Expeditionary Corps. MMDC Medal by the Commander in Chief of the São Paulo State’s Military Police. Medal of the Bicentenary of the Independence Dragons of the Brazilian Army. Union’s Military Justice Medal. November 2008: Appointed Grand Master of the Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais, Portugal. Appointed as Cultural Attaché of the Université de Yôga de Paris, France. 2nd December: Medal attributed by the São Paulo Press Association, in view of his initiatives in social and humanitarian causes. 4th December: Sentinelas da Paz Medal, by the UNO Blue Berret Corps from Joinville, Santa Catarina. 5th December: Social and Cultural Recognition Cross, at the São Paulo City Hall. 9th December: Military House Medal, by the Civil Defense, at the Government Palace, in view of his participation in the various Clothing Campaigns organized by the São Paulo State and for his assistance in gathering resources to help the homeless after the Santa Catarina tragedy. 22nd December: an additional Recognition Diploma of the Civil Defense, at the Government Palace. 2009: January: Diploma of the Amigo da Base de Administração e Apoio do Ibirapuera, of the Brazilian Army. D. João VI Collar, by the Judicial Power, Military Justice. Attestato di Riconoscimento, by the Accademia del Fiorino di Arti, Lettere, Scienze, Lavoro e Spetaccolo, Italy. Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca’s Collar, by the Brazilian government, on the occasion of the celebration of the 120 years of the Brazilian Republic and national flag implementation. Medal by the Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil. Emeritus Federal Counsellor Diploma, Brazilian government award Grand-Collar by the Sociedade Brasileira de Heráldica, on the occasion of DeRose’s 50 year mastership. DeRose’ anniversary date, 18th February, was adopted by thirteen Brazilian states and established, by state law, as Yôga Day. Those states are: São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Paraná, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, Minas Gerais, Bahia, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Pará, Goiás, Piauí, Ceará, and also the Federal District. Currently, writer and philosopher DeRose celebrates his 25 book publishing, in several countries and with over one million copies sold. His anti-commercialist posture has attained something never before accomplished by an author with their editor: the liberty to allow free internet download of several of his books in Portuguese, Spanish, German and Italian, free of charge MP3 of his Yôga practice CDs and tens of webclasses, also for free, at the Uni-Yôga site: www.Uni-Yoga.org, which doesn’t sell anything whatsoever. All of these were historical precedents, which made DeRose the most quoted and, undoubtedly, the most important Brazilian Master of Yôga, for the tireless energy he uses in promoting Yôga for the last 50 years, in books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, conferences, courses, trips and new teachers’ training. He has formed over 6.000 good Yôga teachers and has helped create thousands of Yôga centres, professional associations, Yôga Federations, Confederations and Unions. As of today, his work has spread throughout Argentina, Chile, Portugal, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Hawai, Indonesia, U.S.A., Canada, Australia, etc. DeRose is supported by an expressive number of cultural, academic, humanitarian, military and governmental institutions, who recognize the value of his work and made him the world’s most decorated Master of Yôga with medals, titles and commendations. Notwithstanding, he always states: “The honors I am awarded from time to time by the Brazilian Army, the Legislative Assembly, the State government, the City Hall, the Military Police, the Civil Defense, the São Paulo Press Association, the Rotary, the Brazilian Chamber of Culture, the Order of the Parliament Members of Brazil and by other cultural and humanitarian institutions, are demonstrations of the respect paid by society to Yôga and to all professionals in this area. So being, it is my wish to share with you the merit of this recognition. Publicizing these tributes and commendations is not justified by personal vanity. It is a good thing that these award solemnities take place, because the public opinion, our teachers, our students and their relatives understand that there are strong and credible institutions that support us and that acknowledge the value of the work we have been carrying out on behalf of youth, the nation and mankind”. You can see the institutional site here: ['www.MetodoDeRose.org'] And one site in ennglish: [www.derosemethod.us*] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.62.121 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] I accept these tributes, because they do not serve to inflate one’s ego, but their purpose is the recognition of Yôga by society and by the institutions. It is Yôga which is being commended”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrdemMeritoIndiasOrientais (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Testimonial from OrdemMeritoIndiasOrientais

Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais certifies the truthfullness of the statements below, published on Wikipedia about writer and educator DeRose. Ordem do Mérito das Índi--OrdemMeritoIndiasOrientais (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)as Orientais is a not-for-profit, non-political, non-religious cultural institution that was officially created in 2008, in the city of Penafiel, Portugal, with the purpose of: - acknowledging public recognition to various individuals and institutions with outstanding contribution in the national and foreign cultural, social and philantropic areas; - promoting India's ancient cultural and philosophical inheritance; - establishing relevant links within the India-Brazil-Portugal cultural circuit; All these actions are publically and officialy marked by the attribution of honorary medals and decorations, and by the organization of several cultural events. The foundation act of this institution was honoured by the presence and the official support of the Portuguese Ministry of Culture, the Health Services Secretary of State, Dr. Manuel Pizarro, the Júlio Resende Foundation (Júlio Resende is a woldwide renowned Portuguese painter) and the Mayor of the city of Penafiel, Dr. Alberto Santos. Among the events put forward by Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais as a tribute to DeRose, we would like to mention two in particular: DeRose Culture and DeRose Gala, two annual events made in Portugal, consisting of a series of cultural events, including exhibitions and artistic performances related to ancient India’s culture and philosophy. The 2008 edition of the DeRose Gala featured an Exhibition/Installation based on one of DeRose’s books (Sútras – Máximas de Lucidez e Êxtase) – see the vídeo presentation at: http://www.memoriamedia.net/dossiers/sutras_imagens/dossier_expo/sutras_expo.html. The Exhibition which took place at the Museu Municipal de Penafiel, which was officially nominated for the EMYA 2010 (European Museum of the Year Award), which awards each year the museums that significantly contribute to cultural development on their specific area of expertise and to European cultural exchange. These year’s editions will be specially dedicated to celebrating DeRose’s Golden Jubilee. This way we will be marking the 50 year mastership of this worldwide renowned writer, educator and philosopher with a special tribute during the DeRose Gala 2010, for which several institutions and individuals were invited. Already for DeRose’s 25 year mastership celebration a commemorative medal was released in Portugal to mark that significant date. These events welcome yearly some of the biggest international authorities on Ancient Yôga and also a few hundred participants coming from Portugal, Brazil, Spain, France, Italy, United Kingdom and Germany.[reply]

As per our official invitation, DeRose joined Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais as Grand Master, which very much honours this institution. In that post he awarded several individuals in 2008 and 2009, such as: - Júlio Resende (worldwide renowned painter) and the Júlio Resende Foundation - Journalist and writer António Mateus - Dr. Manuel Pizarro (Health Services Secretary of State, member of the Portuguese Republic’s government) - Prof. Giuseppe Mea (representative of the Italian community in Portugal). As referred in DeRose’s Historic, between years 2001 and 2002 he was acknowledged as Master in Yôga and Honoris Causa doctorate (Notorious knowledge in Yôga / non-academic) by Universidade Lusófona de Lisboa and by Universidade do Porto (Portugal).

The prestige he has gathered throughout the years for his honest and anti-commercial posture has found an echo in the international media and is materialized by the cultural support of various official institutions, like the Indian Embassy in Brazil and Portugal.

One of the most recent interviews to DeRose was made in 2009 by Portuguese journalist and writer António Mateus*. It was released on a DVD entitled “Conversas com Rumo”. The following caption languages are currently available: spanish, german, italian, The english version will soon be released (http://www.uni-yoga.org/entrevista_derose_tv.php). Also in April 2009 DeRose was interviewed by Portuguese State TV Channel TV2. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqHVm2u1T6I). On May 2007 he was the special guest of Portuguese TV show “Páginas Soltas”, hosted by Bárbara Guimarães http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T0pEOayeCc).

António Mateus started his career as a reporter in the O Globo newspaper, in 1982. He worked in the News Agencies NP and Lusa and he headed both their delegations in Maputo and Johanesburg from 1986 to 2003. He collaborated several times with BBC, Voice of America, Portuguese radio broadcast station RDP, Visão and Expresso (two of the most relevant Portuguese magazines and newspapers). He worked for the three Portuguese TV channels before joining RTP’s board (the public TV channel) in 1996, as Information and Program Coordinator of RTP Africa. He was the first Communication Advisor for CPLP (Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries), Managing Director-founder of Focus magazine, RTP’s International Politics Editor and, as of today, Editor for two major TV news shows, Telejornal and Jornal 2. During the 16 years he spent in southern Africa as a reporter, he ensured daily coverage of the developments on Angola and Mozambique’s civil wars and the subsequent peace endeavors. He also closely accompanied and reported all the negotiations for the Cuban withdrawal from Angola, Namibia’s independence process and the end of apartheid in South Africa, among several other relevant media issues. While he worked as a news correspondent in South Africa, he interviewed tens of world notorious individuals, like the Nobel prize awarded Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and Frederik de Klerk. He closely accompanied the first six years of Nelson Mandela’s life after being released from captivity. These experiences were the starting point for António Mateus’ two books: "Homens vestidos de Peles Diferentes" (Ulmeiro) e "Selva Urbana" (Colibri). For more information on writer and journalist António Mateus: http://selvaurbana.blogs.sapo.pt. The above text is the short English version of his profile, taken from the blog.

Ten of DeRose’s 25 literary works were published in Portugal: Tudo sobre Yôga Origens do Yôga Antigo Mitos e Verdades Encontro com o Mestre Eu me lembro… Alternativas de relacionamento afectivo Chakras e kundaliní Sútras – Máximas de Lucidez e Êxtase Quando é preciso ser forte and Tratado de Yôga (in Sanskrit: Yôga Shástra), the world’s most comprehensive book on Yôga ever published, in the whole history of Yôga. It comprises 58 breathing exercises, 32 mantras, 27 kriyás, 52 concentration and meditation exercises, 108 mudrás and their correspondant pictures, and over 2.000 physical techniques (ásanas) and their correspondant photos. This book is a classic. It teaches a peculiar, far reaching subject, which is treated in an accurate and elegant language, as never seen before in this publishing field. DeRose’s Tratado deYôga is a canonical masterpiece when it comes to dealing with the millenary philosophy of Yôga. DeRose has been researching and teaching for 50 years, in a continuous struggle to rescue the Ancient Yôga’s true essence, without ever giving way to modern trends that tend to simplify, adapt, westernize or mix this noble cultural inheritance with other proposals. This masterpiece was made with over 200 collaborations, improvements and additions. We replaced the two thousand, one hundred and sixteen ásanas photo file by a new one with higher definition, we inserted more varied photos, we revised the text, we added footnotes, we included more information and instructions wherever there was available space. We enhanced a few paragraphs, we ameliorated some of the test replies, we updated the recommended bibliography, as well as the History of Yôga in Brazil, we chiseled some of the pages’ layout in order to make them more didactical or more aesthetic, we perfected the cover so as to make it more elegant and the title clearer, and, finally, we couldn’t help adding 30 new pages. Tratado de Yôga has been commended by the Chairman of the Yôga Federation of India, M. S. Viswanath, who stated: “This book is the monumental contribution to this century’s Yôga and the most priceless gift to the forthcoming’s one”. The book includes also the statements of several Ambassadors of India in Brazil and Portugal, together with the cultural support of those Embassies. For more information on Tratado de Yôga: http://www.tratadodeyoga.com

For more information on Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais: http://www.ordemmeritoindiasorientais.eu http://www.ordemmeritoindiasorientais.eu/doc/

For more information on writer, educator and philosopher DeRose: www.uni-yoga.org www.uni-yoga.org/blogdoderose www.uni-yoga.org/blogdoderose/comendas-e-condecoracoes/

With our most respectful salutations

Luís Lopes

Presidente da Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais

DeRose’s Historic and Trajectory

DeRose is an Honoris Causa Doctorate, Notorious Knowledge, Commendation-awarded by several cultural and humanitarian institutions, Counsellor of the Order of Parliament Members of Brazil, Counsellor of the Brazilian Art, Culture and History Academy and Counsellor of the Latin-American Art Academy. He has accomplished 50 years as an educator, of which 24 years were spent travelling to India. During his journeys he attended countless schools, monasteries and other cultural institutions, and in all of them he endeavored to master his knowledge on hindu philosophy. Here is a brief overview of his career trajectory:

1960: He began teaching in a respectful philosophical society.

1964: He founded the Instituto Brasileiro de Yôga.

1969: He published his first book (Prontuário de Yôga Antigo), which was belauded by Ravi Shankar himself, by Master Chiang Sing and by other reputed authorities.

1975: Already consecrated as a truthful teacher, he raised the necessary support to found União Nacional de Yôga (Uni-Yôga), the first institution to congregate teachers and schools of all types of Yôga, without discrimination. It was União Nacional de Yôga who started the union, ethics and mutual respect movement among the professionals in that teaching area. Since then, the institution has grown widely and today has hundreds of schools in just about the whole of Brazil, and teachers in Argentina, Chile, Portugal, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Hawai, Indonesia, Canada, U.S.A., Australia and other countries.

1978: He led the campaign to create and promote the first bill to regulate the Yôga teacher professional status, which set in motion a few heated and lively debates across the country. From the 70s on, he introduced the University Extension Courses to form Yôga teachers in almost all Federal, State and Catholic Universities.

1980: He started administering courses in Indian territory and giving classes to Yôga teachers in Europe.

1982: He put together and conducted the First Brazilian Yôga Congress. Still in 82 he released the first teacher-orientation book, the Guia do Instrutor de Yôga, and the first translation of Pátañjali’s Yôga Sútra ever made by a Brazilian Yôga teacher. Yôga Sútra is the most relevant book on Classic Yôga.

Unfortunately, the more Prof. DeRose stood out, the more he became the target of a merciless persecution made by those who felt harmed by his clarification campaign.

1994: When accomplishing 20 years of travelling to India, he founded the First Yôga University of Brazil and the International Yôga University in Portugal.

1997: He launched the foundations of the Federal Yôga Council and the National Union of Yôga Teaching Professionals.

2000: He celebrated his 40th anniversary as a reputed Yôga teacher and researcher. In the subsequent years, as follows, he was awarded many honorary titles by several cultural and humanitarian institutions.

2001 and 2002: Master in Yôga and Honoris Causa doctorate (Notorious knowledge in Yôga / non-academic) by FATEA – Faculdades Integradas Teresa d’Ávila (SP), by Universidade Lusófona de Lisboa (Portugal), by Universidade do Porto (Portugal), by Universidade de Cruz Alta (RS), by Universidade Estácio de Sá (MG), by Faculdades Integradas Coração de Jesus (SP) and by the Curitiba City Hall (PR). Commendation of the Ordem do Mérito de Educação e Integração by the Sociedade Brasileira de Educação e Integração.

2003: Commendation award by the Brazilian Academy of Art, Culture and History.

2004: Knight’s degree, by the Ordem dos Nobres Cavaleiros de São Paulo, acknowledged by the Commander-in-Chief of the Nineth of July Cavalry Regiment, of the São Paulo State Military Police.

2006: Tiradentes Medal by the Legislative Assembly of the Rio de Janeiro State. Peace Medal, by ONU Brazil. Honoris Causa doctorate by the Câmara Brasileira de Cultura, by Universidade Livre da Potencialidade Humana and by several other cultural institutions. Historical and Cultural Merit Diploma (Grand Officer degree). He was also appointed as Counsellor of the Order of Parliament Members of Brazil.

2007: Honorary Associate Member of the Rotary Club.

Paul Harris’ Medal of the Rotary Foundation (Rotary International). International Medal of the United Nations and American States Veterans. Academic Cross by the Federação das Academias de Letras e Artes do Estado de São Paulo “for meritory and uplifting actions on behalf of the Nation’s development”. 30th January: Moção de Votos de Júbilo e Congratulações by the São Paulo City Hall (RDS 3059/2006). 27th March: Voto de Louvor e Congratulações by the Paraná State Legislative Assembly “for relevant services rendered”. December: Marshal Falconière’s Medal.

2008: Láurea D. João VI, included in the celebration of the 200 years of the Harbour Opening. 18th February (considered as Yôga Day by state law in thirteen Brazilian states) Title of São Paulo’s Citizen, by the São Paulo City Hall. March: Omnium Horarum Homo Diploma of the Civil Defense, attributed by the governor of the São Paulo State, José Serra, “for his commitment towards the humanitarian cause”. Peace Cross of the II World War Veterans. Merit Medal of the Brazilian Expeditionary Corps. MMDC Medal by the Commander in Chief of the São Paulo State’s Military Police. Medal of the Bicentenary of the Independence Dragons of the Brazilian Army. Union’s Military Justice Medal. November 2008: Appointed Grand Master of the Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais, Portugal. Appointed as Cultural Attaché of the Université de Yôga de Paris, France. 2nd December: Medal attributed by the São Paulo Press Association, in view of his initiatives in social and humanitarian causes. 4th December: Sentinelas da Paz Medal, by the UNO Blue Berret Corps from Joinville, Santa Catarina. 5th December: Social and Cultural Recognition Cross, at the São Paulo City Hall. 9th December: Military House Medal, by the Civil Defense, at the Government Palace, in view of his participation in the various Clothing Campaigns organized by the São Paulo State and for his

assistance in gathering resources to help the homeless after the Santa Catarina tragedy. 22nd December: an additional Recognition Diploma of the Civil Defense, at the Government Palace.

2009: January: Diploma of the Amigo da Base de Administração e Apoio do Ibirapuera, of the Brazilian Army. D. João VI Collar, by the Judicial Power, Military Justice. Attestato di Riconoscimento, by the Accademia del Fiorino di Arti, Lettere, Scienze, Lavoro e Spetaccolo, Italy. Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca’s Collar, by the Brazilian government, on the occasion of the celebration of the 120 years of the Brazilian Republic and national flag implementation. Medal by the Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil. Emeritus Federal Counsellor Diploma, Brazilian government award Grand-Collar by the Sociedade Brasileira de Heráldica, on the occasion of DeRose’s 50 year mastership.

DeRose’ anniversary date, 18th February, was adopted by thirteen Brazilian states and established, by state law, as Yôga Day. Those states are: São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Paraná, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, Minas Gerais, Bahia, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Pará, Goiás, Piauí, Ceará, and also the Federal District.

Currently, writer and philosopher DeRose celebrates his 25 book publishing, in several countries and with over one million copies sold. His anti-commercialist posture has attained something never before accomplished by an author with their editor: the liberty to allow free internet download of several of his books in Portuguese, Spanish, German and Italian, free of charge MP3 of his Yôga practice CDs and tens of webclasses, also for free, at the Uni-Yôga site: www.Uni-Yoga.org, which doesn’t sell anything whatsoever. All of these were historical precedents, which made DeRose the most quoted and, undoubtedly, the most important Brazilian Master of Yôga, for the tireless energy he uses in promoting Yôga for the last 50 years, in books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, conferences, courses, trips and new teachers’ training. He has formed over 6.000 good Yôga teachers and has helped create thousands of Yôga centres, professional associations, Yôga Federations, Confederations and Unions. As of today, his work has spread throughout Argentina, Chile, Portugal, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Hawai, Indonesia, U.S.A., Canada, Australia, etc. DeRose is supported by an expressive number of cultural, academic, humanitarian, military and governmental institutions, who recognize the value of his work and made him the world’s most decorated Master of Yôga with medals, titles and commendations. Notwithstanding, he always states:

“The honors I am awarded from time to time by the Brazilian Army, the Legislative Assembly, the State government, the City Hall, the Military Police, the Civil Defense, the São Paulo Press Association, the Rotary, the Brazilian Chamber of Culture, the Order of the Parliament Members

of Brazil and by other cultural and humanitarian institutions, are demonstrations of the respect paid by society to Yôga and to all professionals in this area. So being, it is my wish to share with you the merit of this recognition. Publicizing these tributes and commendations is not justified by personal vanity. It is a good thing that these award solemnities take place, because the public opinion, our teachers, our students and their relatives understand that there are strong and credible institutions that support us and that acknowledge the value of the work we have been carrying out on behalf of youth, the nation and mankind”.

You can see the institutional site here: ['www.MetodoDeRose.org'] And one site in ennglish: [www.derosemethod.us] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.62.121 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept these tributes, because they do not serve to inflate one’s ego, but their purpose is the recognition of Yôga by society and by the institutions. It is Yôga which is being commended”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrdemMeritoIndiasOrientais (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear wiki

I have known Prof. DeRose's work for 18 years now, and I can clearly state that Professor DeRose is one of the most serious educators and Masters of Yoga, his work leading the area in several countries. All of his bibliography is hyper-linked (although not in English) and they prove his good reputation In my point of view, it will be very important to have his work in English language, as every country should get accesses to his work, as I think is a amazing contribution for man kind. Kind regards Gustavo Cardoso Well-being consultor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavo321 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It doesn't matter how many testimonials we receive here, if there are no independent reliable sources in English, then we cannot have an article in the English Wikipedia. It is perfectly possible to have a subject which has a Featured Article in one language and no notability in another. (Granted, some wikipedias where there is very little literature in the given language need to accept references in other languages, but that is not an issue for en). Also, if kept, the article would need to move to Luís DeRose, since titles are not included in article names. dramatic (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The language of sources shouldn't be an issue at all. It must be verifiable that they are reliable, though. Nageh (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy is really well-known in Brazil and there is plenty of sources atesting to his notability. I agree with Dramatic that the article need to move to Luís DeRose. Another possibility here is to recast the article to Method DeRose, the method he created and which has become the most popular Yoga method in Brazil. Lechatjaune (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide some sources? --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a good source at http://www.uni-yoga.org/blogdoderose [25], then in an interview in youtube [26]. Thank you. Dcambria (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I am not a practitioner of yoga, I have no personal interest at all in keeping this article and I deprecate the use of Wikipedia for promotion or posting of partial information. But I'm a brazilian myself and I must recognize the enormous comercial success of DeRose. The article itself brings some links to Estadão, which is a well-established brazilian newspaper. Lechatjaune (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/stub While we have testimonials and assertions of notability, the article would need a complete rewrite from sources meeting WP:BIO criteria once they are provided. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 9 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 00:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In Argentina he is also very well known. Here's a link to a site with many news articles about he's work. Also many states of Brazil have declared DeRose's birthday as "Day of Yôga". This is definetly proof of notability. He has also been very present in the media. On top of these Van Lysbeth includes DeRose's book in his bibliography on one of his latest books(I'll come back later with the exact information). These should also validate it's notability. --Dwaynemac (talk) 23:58, 13 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) 20:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. Although it's still early to tell, I think we shouldn't delete this article prematurely. What is strongly required though is references outside(!) of DeRose's circle, such as media coverage etc., that verifies his notability. Nageh (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC) PS: But yeah, this article would need to be moved to his real name. Nageh (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 06:02, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per WP:RELIST, two relistings is the maximum. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Sue Cooper[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has already been deleted once Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Sue Cooper. Subject does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO notability criteria. EuroPride (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cybergirl of the Year award reported by multiple reliable source passes WP:PORNBIO. She also has enough coverage for me to pass the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably not notable. - Schrandit (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:ANYBIO, the subject has won a notable award in her industry - Playboy cybergirl of the year. --Ronbo76 (talk) 11:45, 9 April 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) 00:05, 10 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) 20:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep: Per Ronbo76. Was deleted once, but was recreated and has stood for 3 years since.--Milowent (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 06:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

commentIs Playboy cybergirl of the year a notable award? The fact this was deleted once and then resotrored tends to imply to me that at that time it was not notable, what has changed?Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Second relisting failed to achieve consensus (per WP:RELIST) (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Periphery (band)[edit]

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

Band whose debut album is set to be released later this month. No evidence of nationwide or worldwide touring, no tracks in radio rotation, no awards. Their notability seems to hinge on the frontman's "reputation on the Internet", and a former member who is also a member of another band that is itself borderline.

I am also nominating the aforementioned as-yet-unreleased debut album:

There's not much to be found in the way of reliable sources that would help support WP:GNG notability; I search the GNews archives, for example. ~~Delete~~ unless some sources are found before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I was unable to find significant coverage of the band or the album. I did find a pitchfork review of an album called Periphery by a different band: [27], but nothing else. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their online following is considerable, but the challenge would be to find sources to corroborate that. It's obviously difficult to quantify, but for example Periphery currently has 2.5 million plays on Myspace, as opposed to, for example, Billy Ray Cyrus, who has 4.9 million. Not widely known, but not unheard of either; people pay to see them, at any rate. What sort of sources would be necessary to prove their notability such that we could stopgap this article until their album comes out on the 20th, when presumably there will be more mainstream coverage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.53.125 (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The notability criteria for bands and musicians is WP:BAND. If you can find any reliable sources (meaning: sources independent of the band with strict editorial standards; i.e. not blogs, forum posts, social networking pages, other wikis, or pages controlled by the band or their label or otherwise with a conflict of interest) showing that it meets any of those criteria, that would be sufficient to keep the article. — Gwalla | Talk 05:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few independent sources: [28] [29] [30] I'm not going to lie, these are dubious as to the "non-trivial" criterion - but not deleting this article now will save it having to be re-created in 18 days, so maybe we should cut them a little slack. Periphery may also qualify on point 7 insofar as they are held up as a progenitor of "djent" math metal, which has gained traction in the Baltimore area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.53.125 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Noisecreep article seems good: the article is clearly about them and appears to be written by a third party. The other two are reprinted press releases: Hardtimes.ca's comes from here, and the Altsounds article, though attributed to a staff writer, is also found here where it is specifically identified as a press release. Also, the article wouldn't have to be recreated in 18 days, because one album would not be sufficient to meet WP:BAND criterion #5 (two albums on a major or important indie label). As for being progenitors of "djent" math metal, you'd need a reliable source backing that claim: I was unable to find one (googling "djent metal" only brought up stuff like forums, mailing list archives, Last.FM, and Urbandictionary). — Gwalla | Talk 06:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here is another independent source: [31] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamahomelessman (talk • contribs) 04:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is evidence of nationwide touring, just not a lot of non-interview coverage thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.53.125 (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They've been in rotation in Sirius XM's "Liquid Metal" station, and on miscellaneous college radio, including interview appearances on KALX, if I'm not mistaken. Any evidence of commercial airtime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.53.125 (talk) 18:24, 7 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, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (changed from "delete") on the basis of some non-press-release coverage, discussed above. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find stuff here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I could keep going on, but you get the idea. I took links to news from both independent and Roadrunner sites. Being signed to Roadrunner is an accomplishment for this band due to Roadrunner Records notability of signing metal bands. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those all appear to be blogs, mostly reprinting press releases, with the exception of the Roadrunner Records page, which is a press release full stop. The only ones that appear to be original are the metalhammer.co.uk article, which is pretty skimpy, and the metalsucks.net article, which is mostly about how some other band that sounds similar picked up their ex-lead vocalist. One of those links, the puregrainaudio.net one, even appears to be the same press release as the hardtimes.ca article linked earlier. We're still short on reliable sources, and I don't think circulating press releases supports a claim to notability through widespread media coverage. As far as the signing goes, that doesn't automatically confer notability pre WP:BAND: only releasing two or more albums on a notable label does. — Gwalla | Talk 18:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Being signged to a label is nice but the band could be adequately covered in the article on the label. RadioFan (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my incorrect formatting, I am not a Wiki-expert. Periphery is on tour in Australia with The Dillinger Escape Plan. How is that not notable enough to constitute allowing them to keep their Wiki page? -Ryan R. Koehler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.71.202 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over 2.6 million views on their myspace profile without even a debut album release. I'm sure the album will atleast chart and allow this band to gain some significance.24.16.153.102 (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe. We can't know that will happen until it does. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Gwalla | Talk 16:09, 16 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) 20:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this helps? The debut cd can be purchased a Bestbuy.com and in store as well. This is atleast testimony to how large their distributor is,smaller bands do not get this type of availability for their albums. [[32]]166.20.224.13 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album reviews are appearing, now that the album has been released. There's this in AbsolutePunk, and a brief concert review from the Dallas Observer. The Boston Globe says they are a "buzz band". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another album review [33]

Album is tracking #60 on iTunes album chart, and #4 on Amazon.com's Bestsellers in Hard Rock & Metal (see band and album pages for URLs). While we agree that wikipedia is no crystal ball, I don't think one can get those kind of sales numbers and NOT end up on the Billboard Top 200 when Billboard next updates, which would comply with point #2 on WP:BAND.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 06:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. While personally I would have left this for a few weeks until the album actually came out to see if more coverage emerged, this looks like a case of a band that is not yet sufficiently notable but will likely be so come May. Coverage found includes evidence of a couple of interviews, Blabbermouth.net news articles likely sourced largely from press releases (as, it should be noted, are a lot of newspaper articles) ([34], [35]), one from The Gauntlet, one from altsounds, a few non-staff reviews ([36], [37], [38]), a article and video from GuitarEdge.com (a recognized reliable source?), and a few more user-written things on various sites. Not enough to be convincing, but let's allow for it to be improved as more sources become available.--Michig (talk) 07:02, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan Lowe[edit]

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

The only reason this guy has a page is because his dad is Kevin Lowe. He is not notable. He has not played at the pro level and has not done anything special in the WHL. This guy would be lucky if he gets drafted. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited, and fails both WP:ATHLETE and the hockey projects notability guidelines. Reso lute 17:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless there is some general notability not mentioned in the article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything already said. If/when he becomes notable, then the article can be recreated. Until then, this fails several different guidlines. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable junior who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATH. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has yet to play professionally, be drafted in the first round of the NHL draft, or win a significant amateur award. Patken4 (talk) 00:18, 29 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skratch Bastid[edit]

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

The news hits on Google don't indicate notability as they mention him by name, concert listings, a tweet, and nothing else. A general search finds the usual YouTube links, other video site links, reviews, Facebook, etc.. None of this stuff can't be used to assert notability, that he is Juno nominated, or won Scribble Jam. I found an interview, but it is promoting an event that isn't notable. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article from Exclaim! confirms he was nominated for a Juno in 2008 for his production work for Buck 65. That passes WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You haven't added it to the article. So you are still leaving the article unreferenced. Getting a reference and putting it in the article and just getting a reference are two different things. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was nominated for a Juno award, meets WP:MUSICBIO #8. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is a Juno nominee, and I have added another reference to verify that. Andy14and16 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact it wasn't referenced previously to now was a bit of a problem. Any bio article can say they were Juno nominated without being referenced. Thanks for referencing that. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominated for a Juno and has been the subject of articles in national magazines/papers. -DJSasso (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The official Scribble Jam website, located here confirms he is a 3 time winner. I am unsure how to add the citation, but would appreciate if somebody else could plug it in. Gbatesy (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Go to WP:CIT and look at the list of different citation templates, pick the most appropriate one, use what you need for template, and add it in. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:58, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derzhava[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Disambiguation page listing nothing but red links. I would have used the proposed deletion system here, except that another page under this title was deleted at AFD back in 2009. Regardless, the lack of incoming links suggests this one isn't particularly necessary. If anyone writes these articles, the disambiguation page can always be recreated, but at the moment it's entirely unhelpful. Robofish (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Now this, this is cruft. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleaned up to link to the appropriate articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are still zero blue links. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I count five blue links, one in each description. See also MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per jhunterj. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A plausible search term which now (thanks to JHunter) provides useful information. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Darkwind (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the entries have an article with the disambiguation term in its title, which defeats the purpose of WP:DISAMBIG, WP:DDD. The red links are essentially orphans, the Russian party and yacht ones only have 2 links there aside from the disambig page, the Ukrainian party red link is nowhere else.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see MOS:DABRL, which shows that these entries do not defeat the purpose of WP:DISAMBIG. I did fix my typo in the Ukrainian party red link; "What links here" now shows its two other links as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've seen WP:DABRL, and still don't see how it justifies a disambiguation page with only red links for the disambiguation term. There are zero articles with Derzhava in the title. We have no proof for the notability of the red links, and this disambiguation page itself is an orphan page as no actual articles point to it (only user pages, discussions and project pages). This is to me pretty strong evidence that here is nothing to disambiguate, thus the page should be deleted.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the disambiguation project, I can explain some of the confusion. MOS:DABRL justifies red link entries in disambiguation pages. If there is more than one entry, then the dab page is justified (if there's only one, the dab page can redirect to the blue link in it instead). Base name disambiguation pages do not have to be un-orphaned, any more than redirects do. They are there for navigational purposes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Instead of quibbling about rules (see WP:IAR), let's think about usefulness to somebody who is trying to look something up in this encyclopedia. The subject page clearly serves that purpose. Page view statistics show that the page is viewed every day by multiple people. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's a peak since the AfD (AfD's call attention to articles), prior to that it's hard to say who visited the page for what. We're talking about very few hits in general (no more than 12 hits a day, usually much fewer, can't tell if it's one person looking at it multiple times).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is a valid dab page.Starzynka (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was OK with just the red links; is, of course, OK now that the links have been turned blue.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 26, 2010; 13:50 (UTC)
Keep, of course. Look at it pragmatically: If one has encountered this Russian (or Ukrainian) word, transcribed in English as Derzhava, as the name of something - a party, a ship, or as a reference to the globus cruciger of the Russian imperial regalia - and wants to look it up, an article like this is useful, as it will either guide him to the appropriate article, or will tell him that yes, the word may mean something else (for what we don't have an article [yet]). Although I have to say that trying to craft a disambig page that would take care of most likely occurrences of Derzhava in English texts is probably a futile undertaking. This is because in Russian this word is primarily used in its main meaning ("a [powerful, sovereign] nation state"), and then in names of a lot of not-very-notable entities (political parties, organizations, brand names, companies, ships), none of which is very prominent. Thus, realistically, most occurrences of Derzhava in texts in English would be in reference to a large variety of "minor" Russian entities - from a vodka brand to a hotel chain to a patriotic club - that are either not very notable or not notable at all. Reminds you a bit of (the real) Acme Corporations. Vmenkov (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid & useful dab page. Anna Lincoln 11:18, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also deleted was the article on her debut single Almost Love (24/7) per A9. --JForget 02:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Jarrell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This performer is non-notable, at least for now. The objective criteria for MUSICBIO have not been met (#182 is not considered "on the charts"). There is no significant coverage in any reliable source I have been able to find (after a concerted search--try "-soccer" to trim down news archive hits). ^Bongo_matic 04:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 05:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no single or album released yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion was just declined less than 24 hours ago, and again this quick!? See things pointed out on Talk:Jessica Jarrell Candyo32 (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt (due to constant recreation) until notability is established. "Overboard" can hardly be considered a charting effort for Jarrell; it barely made the charts in one country and it is a non-single from another artist's album. –Chase (talk) 22:04, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chalkboard (typeface)[edit]

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

~~Violation of WP:IINFO~~, little notability, no reliable references. ℳøℕø 04:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The complete list of items at NOT#INFO are:

Plot-only description of fictional works.

Lyrics databases.

Excessive listing of statistics.

News reports.

Who's who

FAQs

Which of these does this violate? DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Incorrect nomination rationale, and all system default typefaces are notable. It's as sourced as it can possibly get without getting into crufty territory. Nate • (chatter) 05:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see how this would violate WP:INFO, and it is acceptably sourced. JIP | Talk 05:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This font is very commonly used in advertisements, etc making it quite notable. --RaviC (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref, please? (You may be thinking of Comic Sans)--ℳøℕø 23:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mrschimpf & others.--SPhilbrick T 20:24, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as G12. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Gilbert[edit]

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

WP:COPYVIO. This page is an exact copy word-for-word of what is found here. The one link in the article, which is to the reporter's station, is dead, but the same text was probably found at that URL before. This reporter seems to be very run-of-the-mill, and I do not believe there is anything about her elsewhere that would make her notable. GHits show many people named "Jennifer Gilbert" - they mostly do not appear to be this one. Keep in mind that article has been around since June 2008. Creator is only major contributor, and has not edited since around that time. All other edits since have been relatively minor. Hellno2 (talk) 04:32, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status of freedoms[edit]

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

Original research galore. Emily Jensen (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No sources, no real content, violation of WP:NOT. We ought to have a WP:CSD for this... ℳøℕø 04:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references or sources whatsoever. Does the author decide for themselves whether a country as a freedom or not? JIP | Talk 05:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it is a good faith effort by a new editor, to make what could be a useful list, this appears to be original research. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the creation entirely novel list topics without a verifiable definition contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own idea, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:44, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Please file at Redirects for discussion. AfD is for articles only.. (non-admin closure) ℳøℕø 04:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific calculators[edit]

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

Redundant redirect James (talk) 04:01, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robeson House[edit]

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

A disambiguation page made up solely of redlinks. It probably should have been speedied, but I'm nominating it for AfD since it has survived a PROD. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — to Paul Robeson Home. ℳøℕø 04:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both entries do meet MOS:DABRL, although neither seem particularly notable. Boleyn2 (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid dab. --evrik ^(talk) 21:29, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North of America[edit]

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

Non-notable musical group. Article does not cite reliable and independent sources Andy14and16 (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I contested the prod and added a ref; see also review from Stylus, another Exclaim! article (about a tributary band but addressing NOA several times), review from Scene Point Blank, an interview, radio session for CJLO, article from Now Toronto. Chubbles (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — (weak) The added references are reliable and notability is improved. ℳøℕø 04:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has plenty of references that make it pass notability. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lee Ruggles[edit]

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

No reliable sources to support significance, nothing much from Google hits. Also appears to be a conflict of interest, as explained here [39]. Terrific photographs; one would expect some coverage in journals. JNW (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note referenced link: http://64.241.25.182/mwr/customcf/apps/pgallery/photo.cfm?aid=414&pid=5884&gid=414. Frank Lee Ruggles is "the" photographer for the National Park Service. He holds the same position as Ansel Adams once did. He has photographed over 20,000 images for the NPS, covering 66 of our national parks, and spanning over 21 states. Each one of his photographs becomes an photographic archive for the Department of the Interior. I am trying to uncover, and thus provide, the most credible references possible, given the secure nature of the Department of Interior. (Christie Pettigrew 04:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)) — Unsigned comment added by RugglesFan (talk • contribs).

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

undefined — The above referenced is an IP address without a domain name and doesn't seem reliable. ℳøℕø 04:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever it is, it refers to Ruggles as "NPS Digital Team Photographer". Does this mean he's one member of a team? (I dunno.) If we move up the directory tree we reach 64.241.25.182/mwr/, which tells us (in red capitals) "THIS IS NOT THE OFFICIAL NPS.GOV HOME SITE". It coyly refrains from telling us what it is instead. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. ℳøℕø 04:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage by secondary sources is required to meet WP:N. This does not appear to exist, and the article creator indicates this is the case. Ty 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the resume/biography of a non-notable person. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of WP:BIO notability from WP:RS. If he is indeed "the" photographer for the NPS, as opposed to part of a team, which the information seems to indicate, there needs to be something more rigorous to show that. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:04, 1 May 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Sammons[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. I also can not find any independent sources that show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims to notability and nothing available via google. jmcw (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jmcw. Astudent0 (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, short and sweet. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. might as well close this before more SPAs flank the discussion, anyways aside from them it's a unanimous consensus for deletion JForget 00:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zamora (musician)[edit]

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

Recreation of already deleted article, discussed some time ago here. I didn't nominate this for speedy delete because I want to reach consensus again. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the same reasons for deletion apply here, auto-promotional article. This article was recently recreated in e-wikipedia, by the same user. I was involved in the discussion about the deletion of this article there. And I have very strong reasons to believe, no offence, that Angelamuziotti is a sock puppet account of Alejandrozamora (see here). Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to hide. My co-workers have tried to create the article in past ocassions in both es.wiki and en.wiki. Katydelmar works in my office and we share the same Internet connection. Furthermore, we don't have any relationship with the subject of the article (no WP:COI). However, who assures us that other people who voted "delete" in this AfD (mostly admins) are not the same people, or there is a close relationship (between themselves, or the Wikipedia CEO, or the Arbitration Commitee per WP:ADM), if they all have admin privileges, and admins can change logs and everything as they want?

To summarize: It does not have sense to ask for the result of a poll, to the manufacturer of the voting machine.

AfD's are not, or at least should not be, a poll. Taemyr (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

An administrator can't do any of those things. Also, the assumption that evil admins are tampering with the AFD to try to get your article deleted is quite ridiculous. --Atlan (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it sounds like a joke for you, but I am starting to think that. and more to the point if the article gets deleted again- I will take it to another level, because I proved that my article fulfilled WP:MUSIC Angelamuziotti (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* KEEP This artist is voting member of the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences that awards the Grammys. You can check his references in Amazon.com, Newagepiano.net, isbnDB.com, AMG (allmusic.com), and GRAMMY.com. --Katydelmar (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC) — Katydelmar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. After reviewing the sources, the amazon.com page is a store listing and doesn't appear to be independent. Allmusic.com shows that his albums have been released on a private label, not a major label. Grammy.com does not corroborate that he's a voting member of the academy, only that he has an account on the site—and anybody can register for an account. I don't see any evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* *STRONG KEEP Grammy.com no (as previously said, anybody can register for an account), but a search in Grammy365.com [[40]] [[41]] [[42]] corroborates that he is a member of the academy. Its a site for members of the academy only. --Katydelmar (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC) _{account has been blocked as sockpuppet of Angelamuziotti --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

It's very suspicius that the only couple of editions of Katydelmar have been done in this AFD. --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 04:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He may be a member of the academy, but he isn't necessarily a voting member of the academy. Associate and student memberships are also available. More to the point, membership in the Recording Academy is not an indicator of notability; nomination for an award from the academy would be. —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede membership but not voting membership. —C.Fred (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It does not matter. He is memember of the "National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences anyway. Katydelmar (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC) quoted from Talk:Zamora (musician)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSICBIO#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles

"...A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:..."

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).

https://www.indierec.com/artists-results.php?what=New&lo=150&hi=7

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=zamora+site%3Asky.fm

--Katydelmar (talk)

However, neither of those prove anything, as I've explained at Talk:Zamora (musician). —C.Fred (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katydelmar … presented two possible sources at the AfD discussion for the notability of the article.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=zamora+site%3Asky.fm was offered as evidence that the song had been put into rotation on Sky. However, all of the results from that search were to forums.sky.fm, and forums and blogs are not reliable sources… —C.Fred (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC) quoted from Talk:Zamora (musician)

SKY.fm is a major radio network. It does not matter if it is terrestrial radio or Internet radio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky.fm

Here is the archived play list log of SKY.fm:

http://www.wallpaperweb.org/music/artist/Zamora_22278/

--Katydelmar (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is a single station and not a network. —C.Fred (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant.

SKY.fm is a major radio network, and the station belongs to a major radio network (It does not matter if it is terrestrial, satellite or Internet radio). So, per WP:MUSIC, he meets this criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Katydelmar (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SKY.fm is not a major radio network, per this archived discussion about the notability criteria. DI.com, its sister service, is singled out as an example of a a service without sufficient listeners to qualify. Besides, if he'd achieved that level of notability, there would be other independent sources to meet WP:GNG; all he seems to have is an Allmusic profile. —C.Fred (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your sample is not valid to establish WP:MUSIC its only a talk page and that discussion corroborates that "It comes down to listeners..."

Again: SKY.fm is a major radio network, and only one criteria is need for WP:MUSIC. 70.000 listeners reported today at 9:00 am (or between 40.000 or 100.000 any day at anytime) is a service without sufficient listeners??? Katydelmar (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment let's to do a bet: open a debate to see if SKY.fm or DI.fm is not a major radio network, and if I lose, I will pay you $1.000.000 --Katydelmar (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*SPEEDY KEEP So, having fulfilled WP:MUSIC, with nothing more to argue, I ask to close this debate removing the AfD label of the article in both [en.wiki] & [es.wiki] before of seven days WP:NotEarly, according to WP:KEEP: "..There are zero remaining arguments for deletion.." --Angelamuziotti (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC) — Angelamuziotti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. Artist has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." — Satori Son 14:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Records look to be self-published (Z-records) and manufactured on demand, books look to be self-published (CreateSpace or Z-books). Membership of the Recording Academy: "Our members include: singers, songwriters, engineers, producers, managers [and] a wide range of professionals working in the music industry". I am quite sure they are not all notable. If they are, stand by the lifeboats... Apart from which, I too suspect the sock drawer is stirring again. Peridon (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've reverted a strikethrough on my post and Satori Son's above applied by Katydelmar. I regard this as vandalism, and would advise supporters of the article's retention that tricks like that only help to damage your case. Peridon (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon's revert here. Thank you. — Satori Son 18:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's another one where text went missing... The strikethrough was here Peridon (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both votes does not have any value because the debate had finished when Katydelmar proved that his songs had been played in a major radio network according to WP:MUSIC Angelamuziotti (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither voter has agreed to change his vote, so the debate will run the full seven days. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC was fulfilled. It does not have sense to wait seven full days according to WP:KEEP Angelamuziotti (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is not clearly fulfilled. However, I think the article should stay around seven days before being deleted, if that's what final consensus is judged to be. —C.Fred (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is very clear:

"...A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:..."

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

Angelamuziotti (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. However, there is no evidence that Clear Channel, BBC Radio 1, Virgin Radio, or the like have put him into rotation. That leaves a definitional issue of whether a SKY.fm stream is sufficient for notability, and several editors (including myself) feel that streaming service does not meet the definition. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned that sky.fm is not enough to have the necessary notability. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Katydelmar have previously explained, it does not matter if it is terrestrial, satellite or Internet radio, because when a law is not specific (i.e. 11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network WP:MUSIC) it is open to new technologies. More to the point that this law have not changed in a very long time, knowing that there are new technologies. [[43]]. Radio reaches digital age- quoted from SFgate.com / San Francisco Chronicle newspaper 01-27-2003

Furthermore, DI.FM and his sister network SKY.FM is one of the largest radio networks on the Internet. [[44]]

Angelamuziotti (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Sorry, but that is not fair play. Only one criteria was needed for inclusion per WP:MUSIC. So, I suggest to stop voting or commenting until that a biblio comes to close the case. -- Katydelmar (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliotecario (biblio) = sysop in spanish wikipedia. --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 00:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FINAL NOTE This debate reached the end. WP:MUSIC fulfilled. I am not going to answer or post more comments here. Goodbye -- Katydelmar (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did it? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 00:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the exact moment that WP:MUSIC was fullfiled. Angelamuziotti (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. An AN/I thread has been started regarding the Angelamuziotti's repeated deletion of other users' comments from this discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecesary / Off topic - I have explained each edit. Mostly grammar checks.

Issue Solved. References [[45]]

Angelamuziotti (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per C.Fred plus I couldn't find any notable coverage of the subject in Google News. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was very clear, and everything was well explained. There is nothing more to argue, and there are zero remaining arguments for deletion of this article.

Angelamuziotti (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am copying & pasting the same note:

FINAL NOTE This debate reached the end. WP:MUSIC fulfilled. I am not going to answer or post more comments here. Goodbye -- Angelamuziotti (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You promise? Drmies (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage that I can find. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:Music. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if I thought sky.fm was right for wp:music, 6 plays over a period of 3 months is not rotation. Members of those organisation are far from automatically notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage, no notability. The insane rantings of SPAs does not change that. Snow? Rehevkor ✉ 12:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When SNOW is around, some people use SALT for protection... Peridon (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. Despite the prolonged repetition of the same arguments by the two single purpose accounts, there is no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow... ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 01:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I am a fan of Zamora, and I have joined only to emit my short and humble opinion here.

First of all: I can't believe it.

A musician,

1. Member of the Recording Academy, the organization that awards the GRAMMYs.

2. With his own store in Amazon.com.

3. Author of several albums, listed in Allmusic.com.

4. Author of several books, listed in isbnDB.com.

5. And music air played in Sky.fm, one of the largest radio networks on the Internet.

Is Irrelevant? No notable?

That is incredible...

Sorry, but nobody in this world is going to take seriously all your comments.

p.s,

If the article is deleted, it only will confirm once again, the bad and doubtful reputation of Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Dr.luigibenedetti (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Quack quack! --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any reliable sources, incredible as that might seem. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not to pile on, but doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Jminthorne (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

post-archival for the record (checkuser) (apologies since this is already archived but these sockpuppets are going at this since 2007 and we shouldn't lose trail). This article was deleted on 2009 on eswiki and several zamora sockpuppets were knocked. This seems a recreation with the same tactics. Should it be needed in the future, eswiki checkuser can provide more data. -- m:drini 05:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

[46] (article was later recreated with an homonym)

[47]

[48]

[49]

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

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

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi Charles Loehwing[edit]

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

No evidence from WP:RS that this person exists... in other words, this article violates WP:V. The organization, World Institute of Natural Health Sciences, appears to exist but does not have an article (at best it is a non-notable organization), and indeed said article was deleted as a copyvio after being created by User:Loehwing. Said author has also edited this article, indicating WP:COI, and the article is laced with irrelevant puffery and no references. The WINHS website contains no reference to such a person, but the "media contact" is one rudil, whom I believe to be this person. Ultimately this appears to be part of a walled garden attempt to hoax and/or spam us. Likewise, this person is alleged to be a baron but that can hardly be verified either (using reliable sources regarding peerage, etc.). Unless any of these claims can be verified, I recommend deletion. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Facebook search result seems to confirm this is spam, spam, wonderful spam. As I've already created this AfD, I'll let another user determine whether this should just be a speedy. Kind of embarrassing that this article has existed for so long... --Kinu ^t/_c 02:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Looks like spam to me, however, I'll let some other editors delve a little deeper. ℳøℕø 04:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, a badly-written article about a legitimately notable person can still be deleted if it doesn't do a good job of explaining why the person is notable enough to belong in an encyclopedia. That said, given the evidence here, this guy doesn't even fall into that bucket; I'm not even seeing any verifiable notability here in the first place. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:48, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Romer (economist)[edit]

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

Non-notable university lecturer lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. ttonyb (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. ℳøℕø 04:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find any publications or working papers for Stephen Romer in the Research Papers in Economics database (search results). The Year in Review could be considered a textbook, but it does not seem enough for notability per criterion 4 of WP:PROF. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:24, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The sense of the discussion was that the lack of sources, despite two weeks of consideration post-DRV, was too high a hurdle for the article to overcome. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 9 was to reassess the article's notability (over the consensus found here) due to a possible increase in third-party sourcing. Procedural nomination only, best regards! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and salt. Well, here we go again. I feel like I've rehashed this so many times it could rate an article in and of itself, but I digress. This is a non-notable indie film. This article was previously up for AfD and the decision was to userfy, so that the original author could fix the problems. He posted the article again and unfortunately, the fixes did nothing to change my mind that this is a small, locally-produced mockumentary that has received scant attention outside of Cork. It has been viewed at one local film festival, and while it was well-received there, that apparently is it as far as viewings. References have problems: three are from blogs and therefore not reliable, and three more are to publications that have no online link to the article, and therefore cannot be easily verified. In particular, Hot Press has an extensive archive but only turns up a passing mention of it as "Steamin’ + Dreamin’, available locally on DVD." Everything given seems to point to this as a local phenomenon, which is fine for notability of people and places, but not films. The revised version was nominated for AfD and deleted. The original author kept a copy in user space, then a few months later posted the article again in violation of Wikipedia policy; once we realized what had happened, it was speedy deleted. The author claimed ignorance of policy. He then submitted the article to deletion review, with additional references that he says prove the film's notability. After DRV, the article was then restored to main space for the purposes of this AfD, the fourth overall.

During this process, we have learned that the original author appears in this film, so therefore an obvious conflict of interest exists. It has been obvious to me all along that this author was on a seemingly never-ending campaign to garner publicity for this film by whatever means possible.

The references added do virtually nothing to change my view that this film is not notable. The additional references are not available online and therefore cannot be verified. The remaining references are largely blogs and therefore not considered reliable sources. References to the Cork Film Festival web site are either simple listings of the film's show times, or word-for-word copies of the film's publicity blurb from its own web site. References to The Pavilion's site show nothing at all about the film, and are useless.

I still maintain that this film does not maintain Wikipedia's notability standards for films. It has not seen widespread distribution - it has only been publicly shown at the festival, as best as I can ascertain, and maybe another small showing or two. The DVD is not available from anyone other than the producers, who are apparently selling it out of the back of their cars or something. We cannot verify anything amounting to widespread coverage from independent sources, nor that it has attracted significant attention from anyone outside a small area of Ireland. Even the new off-line references are just from local or regional newspapers, hardly widespread notices. In short, it's a small film that, despite a handful of good local reviews, is not notable by our standards, and this article is yet another attempt to promote it. I've seen enough. Delete this and salt it so we don't have to go through this a fifth time. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not being notable enough for inclusion. --Bsadowski1 07:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at minimum until we have enough information to assess the new sources, which the article author has declined to provide. —Korath (Talk) 08:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I beg your pardon? I've not declined to provide anything. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film has not received merely "local" reviews, as one editor has purported. It has received coverage in Hot-Press, one of the country's premiere publications, and one which is available throughout the world. I don't think it's far-fetched to say that this certainly refutes any claim of the film being a local phenomenon. Additionally, the film is available from a number of DVD and music shops around Cork City as well as Dublin, though this is not verifiable. I just wish it to be known that it is not being sold from anybody's car. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For those who came in late, the comment above is from the original author. He also appears in the film. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very minor independent film with no recognition, awards, or significant coverage. Other than one or two list-type mentions of a screening (e.g., here), I can find pretty much nothing besides promotion. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That the sources are local and non-online has nothing to do with WP:N. Nor does the topic need to meet subject specific guidelines if it meets WP:N. Sources seem acceptable. If there is serious belief that the coverage is fake, that would be different (and on-line scans of the articles would be useful). I'd also like to see the blog coverage removed, but that's an improvement issue, not a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be very happy to provide scans of the articles, but considering they're behind a paywall I am somewhat concerned about copyright status. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you e-mail them to me I'll post them somewhere and link to them here. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assuming good faith of offline sources, there are seven bits of reliable coverage there. Without them there are three, all from the same site, but that's still a reasonable amount of notability. It would be harsh to delete it purely because the coverage is local and the writer has a COI. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a bit puzzled how three references which are all from the same site are enough to establish notability. How did you arrive at that conclusion? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the grounds that for a film to be worth an independent source covering three times over it must have some sort of popular appeal or notability. Perhaps this was wrong, but note that two other sources from different sites have now been added, one of which (this) gives fairly significant coverage. It's also reasonable to assume that the local newspaper articles cited as offline sources really exist, although lke you I am a little skeptical about the Hot Press stuff. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Citylocal listing is just that, an event listing that is barely a paragraph. I disagree that this constitutes "fairly significant" coverage. My skepticism stems from the original author's frequent, strenuous attempts to get this film onto Wikipedia, especially since he has an obvious conflict of interest. I still have this ol' reporter's hunch that his connection with the film's producers is stronger than he has let on to, given his persistence. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand: Please scan the newspaper articles to your computer, and then upload them to Flickr or any other photo-sharing site. Then post the links to this AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'll try to do that ASAP, but I may not be able to get my hands on them for a week or so. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A week would be a bit too long as unless it's relisted the AfD will have been closed by then and the article could already have been deleted. Could you possibly speed it up a bit? It would do your case a lot of good if you could prove that the coverage exists. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, of course, but I don't actually have copies myself; nor unfortunately does the person on whom I'm relying own a scanner. I'll see if I can get a picture taken, perhaps? Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should have images of those offline references uploaded by (perhaps) Friday. In the interest of keeping the discussion alive between now and then, may I ask opinions on the extent to which these might assuage the delete voters' concerns (if you'll be kind enough, for the moment, to take me at my word that this coverage does indeed exist)? Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under normal circumstances, I'd be amenable. But this has gone on so long, and you have had so many chances beforehand, that at this point I'd say no. Even with the evidence, I'm still not convinced that articles from a local newspaper are enough to prove the notability of a film. I still reiterate that this is a film with a small, highly localized following, and that you have a direct conflict of interest in violation of Wikipedia policy, and scans of newspaper clips aren't going to change my mind about that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, notability is not dependent on whether or not you've tired of discussing an article; nor does it depend on how often it has been debated. Yet again, you seem to be choosing to ignore the Hot-Press and TG4 references, both of which prove beyond doubt that the film has far more than a localised following. These two references in particular are key in demonstrating the film's wider appeal. Combined with the other references, we find ourselves with that which constitutes significant coverage in independent media. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't judge the Hot Press reference until I see it, and see whether it is a full-fledged article or just an event listing, or something in between. Many of the references you've given are just listings of showings and such, and do not constitute "significant coverage.". I'm not clear which you are referring to as "TG4." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can't judge it, but my question was regarding its likely effect on your opinion should it indeed be as significant as I've said. The references which only list screenings are there for that purpose alone: to verify that the film was indeed shown in the places the article claims. Those are not themselves evidence of notability; rather proof of the article's content. TG4 is a national television network which covered the film. It's all in the article. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see the TG4 thing now. I was looking for it in the references for verification. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisted to give the creator, Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand, more time to scan the sources.
If an admin disagrees with this relist, feel free to override it and close this debate as you see fit. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I have no issue with the relist, personally. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've waited an additional week, and we've seen nothing more. How much longer should this go on? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it hasn't made it into the Irish Examiner, it's not significant Cork news. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The Examiner is hardly the standard of notability. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 21:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have to admire the author's persistence, but after eight months and four AfDs I can't help feeling we are being strung along while increasingly desperate attempts are made to scrape the bottom of the barrel for anything that might possibly squeeze past the GNG. Compare what we have here with points 1 - 5 in WP:NF#General principles to see how far we are from what is intended by the spirit of WP:Notability (films), which does not envisage that even films which have achieved a full release will necessarily qualify for an article. Also, though COI is not itself a reason for deletion, it is a reason for scrutinising the claim of notability with particular care, and the fact that the only person interested in having an article about this is one of the principals is, to my mind, an argument against its notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm not the only one who's voted in favour of the article! Also, what do you mean by principals? Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 21:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that you were one of the four guys who wrote/produced/directed/starred in the film. If that's not so, I apologise and wuithdraw that part of my remarks. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no no. I went along one day when they asked people to show up as extras for a concert scene. No problem! Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 22:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry guys, I haven't gotten my hands on the articles. I won't say that I expect to in the next day or two either. My apologies. I'm happy to userfy until I do get them, if that's what the next step should be. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 21:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think userfying is even an option anymore. At this point, after all these AfD's and the repeated votes to delete, I can't imagine there being any future for this article, barring the highly unlikely event that is is nominated for an Oscar or BAFTA. I think most everyone else sees what I've claimed all along. If you can't come up with the sources that we can verify, then this article needs to go — again. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JohnCD's cogent arguments and per the lack of verification. If/when Baron Ronan Doyle is able to obtain scans of the sources, I invite them to contact me on my talk page so that I may evaluate whether the sources are sufficient to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I'll update my userspace copy now. Feel free to close. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 00:37, 3 May 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Walker[edit]

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

Nice adulatory article apparently written by someone closely connected to the subject, but unfortunately all the references are primary sources, so there is no indication of notability here, and the entire article resembles one large resume. --DAJF (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — (weak) Has potential; it does read like a resumé as stated above. ℳøℕø 01:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless third-party sources are introduced that signify the subject's notability. Sorafune +1 01:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable third party sources, fails GNG. EuroPride (talk) 10:34, 1 May 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bonjour (software). No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but at this time the consensus is that the subject doesn't warrant a separate article. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Browser[edit]

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

Little notability, no reliable references. ℳøℕø 01:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this article just needs to be expanded and references just need to be added. This does not mean that the article should be deleted.--Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bonjour (software). There a few gbooks and gnews hits on this, but they are all brief mentions. Probably worth mentioning in the article on the software stack, but I don't see it passing WP:GNG for a separate article. Pcap ping 05:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bonjour (software) as suggested by Pcap. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:08, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Booker DeRousse[edit]

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

The fighter in question shows no notability what so ever. Has a .500 record and the article is just a stub. There is no information on the fighter, its simply just his record and his name. Maybe if Strikeforce signs him to a real deal instead of just using him for shows so they don't have to pay for much for the undercard fighters, then I'd say keep it around. If anything, at least clean up the article, its a mess over there. RapidSpin33 (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He appears to be listed in quite a few places. [50] And concerning 'cleaning up the mess over there', be bold! jmcw (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe he fails WP:Athlete because he is not "fully professional", which is what is required. In the last 2 years he has had a total of 4 minor fights--hardly enough to make a living off of. Papaursa (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject appears to be non-notable: Only four fights, none against a fighter of any note, with a 50% win record. Google search only shows the usual fight records/stats and brief descriptions of his fights; no substantial coverage in any media. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not achieved notability for our purposes here. Try another Wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 01:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Astudent0 (talk) 13:32, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerto (software)[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. My searches have yielded no independent coverage. Haakon (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: advertising for more non-notable back-office software: a Project Execution management system, based on Critical Chain concepts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 01:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Sorafune +1 02:00, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Beuk[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The individual does not meet the notability reuirements as outlined at WP:ATHLETE; they have not partcipated at the highest level of their sport, nor do they meet general notability criteria. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 01:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Can't find any sources. Does not meet any WP:ATHLETE criteria. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 05:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 5 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 00:22, 11 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) 21:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I confess I don't know much about Canadian curling. But it does appear that this guy is not notable. The technicalities of WP:ATH and how it applies to curling aside, there are no sources for this BLP. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (weak) "win the Canadian championship." COMPETING at a national level isn't notable, but how about winning? Especially since it qualifies the team to go to the international level. [51] David V Houston (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 01:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I appreciate that there may be some notability here, but this is a BLP and we need sources to document the facts of the article. At present, it appears that no sources are available - and, thus, we need to delete. If we find sources later on, an article might be appropriate - but that's not the case, at present. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable grad student. Unsourced and probably an autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 20:52, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Waterloo Road characters. Second listing passed without a conflicting opinion. (per WP:RELIST) (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Aspinall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first deletion discussion for this article was a massive group AfD which ended in no consensus because there were so many different articles being discussed, even though all editors participating in the discussion voted either "delete" or "merge". As the previous discussion made it clear that each of these articles should be considered individually, I am only introducing one article into this discussion. This Waterloo Road character certainly fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 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 00:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, into a suitable combination article, not just a name on a list. A fairly major character for the entire second season. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 11 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) 21:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Waterloo Road characters. I agree with the nom that this character is not sufficiently notable for a standalone article; he is better treated with a paragraph or two in the list. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 01:01, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Health Match BC[edit]

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

Found no evidence of notability. While there are a few trivial mentions on Gbooks, nothing notable has surfaced. Will reconsider if sources are found. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Coverage exists. I found [52], [53], [54], and [55]. However, the coverage is not very significant, and not enough for me to be convinced this is a keeper. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 00:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of notability. Steven1969 (talk) 01:33, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Cowardice[edit]

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

This article is about a recently coined term used by a news columnist. There is no evidence for any wide spread usage of the term or coverage of the concept. Whpq (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently republished all over the place, so a Weak Delete. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism. Syndication does not count as multiple sources. The article can always be recreated if this gains wider currency. Delete. -- The Anome (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable neologism that really tells us nothing, just a fuzz of glittering generalities: a fearful state of existence that prevents creativity, risk and individuality. It infects the actions of marketers and it is directly responsible for stale communications, easily forgettable campaigns, products, services or ideas. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis, I felt part of my soul die as I read it. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 00:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just promotion for, or a reiteration of, a single newspaper column. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:34, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Binghamton University. Shimeru (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm Method (a cappella group)[edit]

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

Non-notable a cappella group. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Section 9 of Binghamton University. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge although I could be pursuaded to keep if independent sources can be produced to show why this group is notable? A few finishes in a few events does not make the group notable ala Straight No Chaser (a cappella group).---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge merge as suggested by Doc Quintana. The article looks like a repeat of a university brochure and it's not quite encyclopedic. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the conditions that it seems unreasonable that this article should be deleted while articles for other equally and less apparently successful/notable groups seem to exist (see other groups on the wikipedia list of collegeiate a cappella groups- The Dreamers of Phi Mu Alpha, Emocapella, Magevet. Why this article in particular? Iitywimwybmad (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is not a valid argument, as articles are judged on individual merit, and a capella groups must currently be judged under Wikipedia notability guidelines per WP:MUSIC. You could always nominate the other groups' articles for deletion, if you feel they fail notability guidelines, although Emocapella seem to have some claim to notability in terms of press coverage. Moswento (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Hasn't this group fulfilled section nine of the notability guidelines by its success at competitions? Balloonman says, above, that "a few finishes in a few events does not make the group notable," but that seems to directly contradict section nine of the notability guidelines (shown here WP:MUSIC) which states that notability can be established if the group "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Iitywimwybmad (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - - And number eight reads, Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. The examples of a major music award are Grammy, Juno, Mercury Choice, or Grammis---which one of those were RM nominated for? Beyond the obvious, you have to start weighing the notability of the event and factoring that into the equation. While being a runner up for a Grammy would be enough, being the runner up in the Texas State Fair Music Competition wouldn't be. If they had won the college championships or a CARA award maybe. Have they appeared on any national tv/radio? How about statewide tv/radio? Any media mentions? Show us, using independent sources that this group is notable. A few college awards doesn't do it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to play devil's advocate for the beleaugered article creator here, the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella appears to be "major" in a capella circles. I have added some media mentions to the article, though most are the college paper. I can understand the creator's confusion because we have tons of a capella group articles. E.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On a Sensual Note (2nd nomination) (redirected in 06 but recreated in 08), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amalgamates (kept in 06, sourcing is spotty).--Milowent (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the ICCA, yes it is major in a capella circles... but you have to put that caveat on there "in a capella circles." How many a capella groups are currently signed to Major Labels? Besides Straight No Chaser, I'd be surprised if there are any. A capella holds a small niche so I'd want to see them win one of these events or be covered in the larger media. Most of the A capella groups that I looked at did just that showed independent sources. (The school paper doesn't count for much.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent makes a good point in bringing up the other deletion nominations regarding collegiate a cappella. In those situations, the articles were kept, while the groups are no more notable than the one in-question here. Sparqman said in defense of On a Sensual Note (who still have an article, as you can see) in '06 that "The 'some are more notable than others' argument is exceptionally weak, even in the case of the Whiffenpoofs. No one outside of a cappella and New Haven knows who they are, even the presidents they've sung for." If the Wikipedia community wants to come to a compromise regarding collegiate a cappella groups having articles, so that literally every new a cappella group's page won't be marked for deletion at least once, I'd like to be a part of it. If the only collegiate groups with Wikipedia articles were those with Grammy nominations or won the ICCAs, you would have a very short list- and if that's what Wikipedia wants, then Wikipedia needs to implement that across the board. Iitywimwybmad (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well "wikipedia" is merely the collection of assorted editors that happen to come across this deletion discussion. Most deletion discussions are not too difficult, but ones on the margins don't always have consistent results. If you can find more articles about this group, it would help.--Milowent (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First AFD's from 4 years ago don't mean much---that is anceint history in internet terms. Second, ICCA/CARA winners would be a way to assert notability. I would accept either as defacto notability. Both ICCA/CARA offer multiple awards---there is the big one, but they have other awards as well (which probably wouldn't prove notability on their own, but would go towards asserting it.) But without the CARA/ICCA title, then I would expect the group to meet the generally accepted guidelines for notability found at WP:N. Many of the pages that I've looked at do include coverage in outside independent sources.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few random clicks on other A capella groups:

Meddiebempsters Lousy article, but performed for the President, did an overseas tour with the USO, and repeat visits with the DOD.
Beelzebubs didn't have to get further than the lead---international touring and 2nd place on an NBC television competition, multiple CARA awards, Major label contract
Princeton Tigertones-and has traveled across the United States, Europe, and Asia to perform in such storied venues as New York City's Carnegie Hall, London's Barbican Centre, and aboard Cunard Line's Queen Elizabeth 2.[1] The Tigertones have performed before heads of state including President Bill Clinton[2] and the late Yitzhak Rabin.---covered by rolling stone and Life magazine.
The Idlers played for the president, recording contract with MGM, on NBC, Saturday Night Live, numerous notable people have come from the group.
The Earth Tones probably would be an AFD candidate, but I prodded it.
The Yale Alley Cats weak claims, but does meet MUSIC via international tours and appearance on Martha Stewart Live.
Simmons Sirens Prodded.

I did a random search on seven of the a capella groups out there. 2 of those 7 failed to show notability and a third one was fairly weak, but the other 4 clearly deserve articles.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 00:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided are not sufficient to establish this group's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:32, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banchikilli - Music of the Spanish Arawaks of Moruca, Guyuana[edit]

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

Contested prod. This isn't an article, it's an essay. A grand total of 11 Google hits, mostly Wikipedia mirrors. Blueboy 96 21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - very few google hits, essay-like, and conflict of interest issues. Clubmarx (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Music of Guyana. The title of this article is unhelpful, but much of the content can be verified by sources such as these and these books, so is appropriate for inclusion in the national music article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 00:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Music of Guyana per Phil Bridger above. The general Guyana music article is not large enough to warrant putting this information in a separate article. --Darkwind (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to merge when sources don't exist. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:34, 29 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Article has been incubated to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kawartha Lakes municipal election, 2010 for now. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kawartha Lakes municipal election, 2010[edit]

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

If none of these people meet WP:POLITICIAN, then an article about them should faild AfD. Woogee (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We've had similar discussions in the past, and the consensus was to keep these articles. As to WP:Politician, I believe mayors of cities are considered notable, and this being a medium sized city in Ontario, the mayor would be notable enough for an article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a similar debate we had 4 years ago. I stand corrected, there was no consensus, but the page was kept: [56]. Note, Norfolk County is a slightly smaller municipality. Also, recent debates: [57], [58] -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a county/city election of a small/medium polity in one specific year, with no major issues that generate coverage? I'd doubt this is notable ipso facto. If there is significant coverage of it somewhere, that would be different of course. OK. I searched news with the keywords '"Kawartha Lakes" election 2010' and got a single hit relating to this election. (the others were all, I think, Federal) David V Houston (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There will be more coverage of the election as additional candidates are announced. Having one article per city or county is easier to maintain and edit than a single article covering several cities or counties that would be inconveniently large. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure ONE per city would make some sense. One per city per election? Personally, I don't think so. And if the election hasn't happened, should the article be up yet? Wiki is not news.David V Houston (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 74,000 is quite large enough a municipality to qualify for treatment this way; we usually do list every such election separately. It's a matter of style, but there is no reason not to follow our convention. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without coverage in reliable sources there is nothing to write about here. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alberta is also holding municipal elections this year. I have set the municipality notability standard for list inclusion at a population of 8,000, which includes all the cities. And the individual article notability standard as one that has too much information to be included in the list, this may include a list of school trustees, candidate summaries, or a scandal/controversy; currently there are only three that meet this, but the number will rise as the official candidate lists are released, as seen in 2007. I was just having a conversation with a resident of Lethbridge (population 85,492), and we decided that only the metropolitans of Edmonton and Calgary could have councillor articles, the other cities could have only mayor articles. 117Avenue (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per David V Houston. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason, those wanting to keep have failed to supply evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing to say other than that the election will happen; no coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as CRYSTAL, but when election information becomes apparent, recreate. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article makes no claim of notability for this future event. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 3 May 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pius Thekemury[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Contested PROD, but clearly fails WP:PROF. St Anselm (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I lean towards delete, but the basic question comes down to who/what is this soceity and how notable is it? I am not familiar with it, but I'm not in India. Most of the sources I can find for it are via links to various members who are having wikipedia articles created. I think the question for the person who is creating all of these articles is to show that the soceity is notable. If they can then these people MIGHT be worth keeping. But if it can't... DELETE.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Biblical Studies in India. St Anselm (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand it myself: the author has created all these articles on ordinary (non-notable) professors of theology when there are highly influential Indian theologians that don't have articles at all. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF -- one GS citation, just a handful of mentions in GB, no notable positions. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 00:56, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kalluveetil[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Contested PROD, but clearly fails WP:PROF. St Anselm (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I lean towards delete, but the basic question comes down to who/what is this soceity and how notable is it? I am not familiar with it, but I'm not in India. Most of the sources I can find for it are via links to various members who are having wikipedia articles created. I think the question for the person who is creating all of these articles is to show that the soceity is notable. If they can then these people MIGHT be worth keeping. But if it can't... DELETE.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is marginal at best. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Biblical Studies in India. St Anselm (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF -- no GS hits, just a handful of mentions in GB, no notable positions. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 00:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:51, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Balloon Modelling Convention 2007[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/British Balloon Modelling Convention 2007

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

Non notable convention with no sources to show notability nor could I find any doing a search ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable convention. This was written shortly after the event was held in April 2007 in conjunction with the British Juggling Convention, and some of it appears to have been copied from the program. Balloon modelling is the art of twisting balloons into different shapes, and although modelling is notable and even the existence of an annual convention might be, the 2007 gathering doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mandsford (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suspect most, if not all, of this was copied from the program, and in any event I'm not seeing any sources to show notability. Kansan (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 00:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Annual conference might be notable, however, there was nothing notable about the 2007 one. No refs founs. ℳøℕø 04:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ere Seshaiah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ere Seshaiah

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

No significant achievement by this person. The only reason Ere Seshaiah has been part of News is that he was pathologist for Bob Woolmer. This article does not fulfill Wikipedia:Notability_(people) hence it should be deleted. A. L. M. 08:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 00:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Seems like a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E to me. The article is largely about the event, not the Dr. The controversy is already well (and neutrally) covered at Bob Woolmer. However, if there's any evidence that Dr. Seshaiah is otherwise notable, I'd have no problems with someone rewriting the article to a balanced and NPOV treatment of the Dr. himself. --Darkwind (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Haq (Uighur camp leader)[edit]

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

Based on a single primary source. Notability could not be established per WP:GNG WP:BIO IQinn (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not notable (top hit on Google is Wikipedia) and no news results. ℳøℕø 00:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, fails WP:GNG. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure there is really enough information here. Has nobody commented about the matters involving him, anywhere at all, that could be used as a source.? DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNRESERVED: The Work of Louie Gong[edit]

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

Non-notable film. A mention of the creator and/or product in a source does not in and of itself automatically confer notability and the two cited references do not appear to support claims that the film satisfies notability. There are other issues such as WP:ADVERT and WP:COI: the film appears to be primarily a promotional piece for someone who has recently begun selling customized fashion sports shoes. Claims that the production is a some kind of cultural exploration seem somewhat disingenuous. Plutonium27 (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and spammy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 April 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) 00:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Seems like WP:SPAM ℳøℕø 00:35, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Andersen[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT quite clearly. Ironholds (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per above. ℳøℕø 00:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for lack of notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 02:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons I gave when this was prodded in the first place. I can't believe we have to let this drag for 7 days because someone removed the tag by citing a goddamned IMDB entry as "proof" /sigh Tarc (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:CONTESTED. Anybody can remove a PROD tag for any reason, whether or not they cite anything else as proof. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because they can does not mean they should, especially without a valid reason. This is a godawful loophole in the prod policy if it lets any newbie remove a tag for any reason of their whim. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe they shouldn't, but that's the point of PROD -- it can only be used for uncontested deletions that nobody objects to. If anybody objects to deletion of the article, PROD is not the right process under which to delete it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe I just expect a higher degree of common sense from other editors when they choose to contest a deletion. Oh well... Tarc (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue Heelers where common sense indicates this person has whatever slim notabiliy she might. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While it makes sense to me that her actually recurring in 8 episodes of the show so far[59] might then merit her inclusion in the list of recurrings over at Blue Heelers#Recurring/semi-regular cast or at List of recurring Blue Heelers characters, its obvious that no one wishes even that. I give. No doubt someone will add her to one of two places later. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ENTERTAINER. I oppose a redirect on the grounds that her character was only ever a bit part on the show, and hasn't even been adjudged worthy of an entry at List of recurring Blue Heelers characters. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:ENT. St Anselm (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per clearing failing WP:ENT. Xtzou (Talk) 18:16, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as a hoax page; user has been blocked either way (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Banner[edit]

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

BLP article for Science Fiction author and the trilogy he is asserted to have written. The problem here is that while there are sources offered in the articles, there seem to be none online that actually mention the author or his works or the publisher. For example, there is no Amazon listing and there are no ISBNs issued. This would seem to go beyond just lack of notability.There are no mentions whatsoever online, barring the articles. Not even the most humble online fanzine seems to have heard of either the author or works. The publisher mentioned "Micellaneous Books" does not seem to exist either with that spelling or using the spelling "Miscellaneous". The sources offered don't have links and while of course that in itself is not a problem, it is hard to find any existing publication or award-giving body by the names given. There have been magazines called "Science Fiction Monthly" but none seem to be extant. The one non-Wikipedia webpage suggested by Google that seems to have once had "Eric Banner" and "The Martian-Earth Wars" on the same page is on a social-networking site which has been changed since Google indexed it; however, the Google summary [60] does bring up a rather funny comment: "Search "The Martian-Earth Wars" on wikipedia.(Its complete bollocks. I just made it up for fun)." I quite agree. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No ISBN? Delete. Sorafune +1 02:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- nice research there, Flowerpotman. Reyk _YO! 03:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only other mentions are wp mirrors, as the guy says "Its complete bollocks". Misarxist (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. Snappy (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Alright you caught me. I made it up for fun. I wanted to see how long it would take Wikipedia to notice a fake article on its site. Once I got into it, I found it quite fun, and so I created an entire world around it. However, those two articles are literary genius. I was able to create two pages on items that never existed and still gave the reader a good read. The Martian-Earth Wars actually is based on a book I planned on publishing but never got around to.

I'd just like say , well done Flowerpotman. That's some good research. How did you find that profile comment? I mean well done. I tip my hat to you. Go on delete it if you want. I put a lot of work into it, but it had a good run. User:Daedulus Caan 15:10, 25 April, 2010

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xpress Optimization Suite[edit]

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

Contested Prod - Non-notable software product. Codf1977 (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 19 April 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) 00:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

undefined — Per above. ℳøℕø 00:36, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delon Thamrin[edit]

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

Runner-up in one of the interminable Idol franchise. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 April 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) 00:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This article says that the subject has been sucessful as a singer and actor aftor leaving Indonesian Idol, but I'm not able to find any sources to back that up. --Darkwind (talk) 17:51, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Matters projects[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP; no way of establishing notability given the lack of reliable, independent secondary sources. The article's references are trivial/in passing, not independent or both. Was nominated for PROD in 2007. Miracle Pen (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently written, for it completely lacks any reliable sources. Trying to find and to add some would be an exercise in futility, because search terms will find lots of false friends. A redirect would not serve any purpose. It's not energy law, and we don't have any articles more specific, such as Energy companies based in Australia. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 19 April 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) 00:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also comes close to meeting WP:CSD#A7 as I'm not even seeing much in the text to indicate that the company is significant. --Darkwind (talk) 17:57, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doomtree[edit]

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

Article not demonstrating the assemblage's meeting WP:BAND by citing reliable sources independent of the group (in fact, the three citations are from interviews of group members). Records did not chart; group seems to be known locally as they have not toured. B.Wind (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple notable members. lots of coverage in Minneapolis' Star Tribune, eg [61]. more coverage elsewhere [62] [63] [64]. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:22, 20 April 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, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per duffbeerforme; The Minneapolis Star Tribune is a reliable source, which bodes well for finding others. The other sources linked above include a student newspaper and another non-RS website, so I don't see enough to meet WP:GNG right now, but it's likely more sources could be found. --Darkwind (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notable artist which meets WP:MUSIC criteria 1 (aside from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, I have found an album review from Pitchfork Media and a a story on Minnesota Public Radio) and 6 (group contains independently notable musicians P.O.S. and Dessa). Their second album has been reviewed in a handful of notable publications and I am currently adding those reviews to the page for that album. However, most non-Minnesota news articles I find on Doomtree on Google News Search mostly come up with articles related to P.O.S. and/or Dessa. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other Minneapolis' Star Tribune articles include "BLOWING UP DOOMTREE; Minneapolis' second best-known hip-hop crew branches out with its second annual shindig." by Chris Riemenschneider, 1 December 2006. "Merchants of Doom ; Hip-hop family Doomtree finally drops its crew album." by Amber Schadewald, 31 July 2008 (may not count as it's mostly one where the ensemble talks about themselves). "STRAIGHT OUTTA HOPKINS ; The five rappers of Doomtree -- most of whom met at Hopkins High School -- break down their solo songs on the new crew album." by Chris Riemenschneider, 31 July 2008. Also Remix has a review on 1 October 2008, Volume 10; Number 10; ISSN Number 48. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:14, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It sounds as if they could be notable. The problem is that no independent reliable sources have been found that support those contentions. No prejudice to recreation when/if such sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandtson[edit]

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

This is a band which has no sources to establish the general notability guideline for bands. Almost a week ago I noticed that the article Death & Taxes (album), which is related to this band, was proposed for deletion because it wasn't notable. The band hasn't won any awards or No. 1 singles or anything like that, so I think the whole thing should be deleted in my opinion. Minima c (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing at WP:BAND that applies to this group, I've also searched for coverage in magazines or newspapers and haven't found anything beyond a brief mention that a CD was released. -- Atama頭 23:26, 19 April 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, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandtson does meet the notability requirements for them to be given their own wiki page. They have produced three albums (Letterbox, Fallen Star Collection and Dial in Sounds) with Deep Elms Records and two albums (Send Us a Signal and Hello, Control) with The Militia Group, both of these labels are prominent in the indie scene. Deep Elms Records has produced popular bands such as The Apple Seed Cast, Cross My Heart, Nada Surf, Planes Mistaken For Stars, Race Car Riot and Sounds Like Violence. The Militia Group has produced several bands that are even more prominent than Deep Elms Records. The Militia Group has produced Acceptance, Cartel, Copeland, The Apple Seed Cast, The Rocket Summer, and We Shot the Moon. These allegations can be verified at the websites of these record labels The Militia Group ([65]) and Deep Elms Records ([66]). The releases with these labels coincides with the requirements for notability as stated on the Wikipedia Notability Music page.

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malegua[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet any prong of WP:BAND. The band is unsigned. The article notes they failed to get radio airplay. The article lists two albums. According to the article for the first album, that album is still unreleased. The release of the second album is described as a future event. The article claims that they were one of the guest artists at a televised concert and played to crowds as large as 6,000 people. However, there are no citations for those claims and I don't think those are sufficient to meet local following notability. JamesAM (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 19 April 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, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also can find no independent third-party coverage to establish notability. Note: before coming across this AfD, I initiated a PROD for the article about their unreleased album based on the WP:CRYSTAL rule. See Aní Tá Má. If the result of this AfD for the band is to delete, the album article should then be speedily deleted per precedent at the Albums Project. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:08, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uršula Reš Muravec[edit]

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

A non-notable Slovenian gynecologist. Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 19 April 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, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. As a gynecologist, she is not notable, and the publications appear to be minor. Enigma^msg 00:26, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roashan Khaleel[edit]

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

Non-notable college and amateur cricketer. Fails WP:ATHLETE and, by my searching, has no general notability either. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 April 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, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has not played first class cricket. Sri Lanka Air Force does play first class cricket, but he is only in their U/23 side. St Anselm (talk) 23:11, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bennie Brownlow[edit]

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

I don't know if he is particularly notable or not. He did manage in the minors for a while and he has a league championship. You decide. Alex (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't the minor leagues still count as fully professional, per WP:ATH? Silverseren^C 06:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to some yes, according to some, no. Alex (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bit of an odd one, this is. While I would not give blanket notability to minor league anything, this particular individual shows a distinguished amount of time in the minor leagues, some 20+ years it looks like (correct me if I'm wrong). Due to the time of prominice (1910-1930 or so), it is highly unlikely that any of the research available will be online anytime soon--most will be in hardcopy books back in the "stacks" somewhere. I say keep this one for historical value and let the article grow.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:35, 24 April 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, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Model United Nations. Shimeru (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Model United Nations Development Programme[edit]

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

Tries to assert notability, but there are not enough reliable sources per WP:GNG. Seems almost like a club website. Although in terms of AfD this isn't a valid argument, there are many much larger conferences such as the UCLA and Berkeley Model UN Conferences, as well as Stanford and Harvard that draw over a thousand participants from all over the world, and still don't have enough reliable sources. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Model United Nations. There is some useful content, but this programme is not notable, and the only two sources are not independent. If it could be sourced better, I'd change my mind. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 19 April 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, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 03:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InLoox[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. My searches have yielded no independent coverage. Article appears to be well-cited, but closer inspection reveals all sources are either self-published, insignificant, or does not even mention InLoox. Haakon (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 19 April 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, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

undefined — Per above. ℳøℕø 01:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant independent coverage by CNET, Swiss IT Magazine, and PMaktuell magazine: [67], [68](translation), [69](translation). — Rankiri (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First of all: I'm employed at the manufacturer of InLoox. I'm not here to argue for one side, but feel the need to clarify on the issue. Decide for yourself. There is notable independent coverage for InLoox, besides the articles posted by Rankiri, e.g. in PC Magazin and Office 2007 für Chefs, Swiss IT Magazine, Digital Engineering Magazin, Computerwelt, IT& Production and Kommune21. However, the coverage is predomiatley in German language. Personally, I cannot agree on Ron Ritzman's statement that there is "no independent coverage". The fact that InLoox is not mentioned in all of the references has two reasons: 1. Some of the articles (from Windows IT Pro and TechRepublic) are only there to substantiate the faith and future of Exchange public folders, as stated in the article ("Microsoft’s announcements of moving away from Exchange public folders might have been be the cause for switching to SQL."). 2. In the Impulse article, InLoox was in fact mentioned, but only in the PDF version of the article but not in the HTML version, which was used in Wikipedia earlier. Maybe the editor was afraid of possible copyright infringements and referenced the HTML version only. This may have caused the impression that InLoox was not mentioned at all in the article. In fact, this was not the case. The same holds true for the c't article. In the print version there is independent coverage, the web version suggests a "self-published" directory entry, which is not the case. If you want, I can provide you with a scan of the original article. However, we cannot use it for the web because of copyright issues. --Iqmedialab (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability seems restricted to German-speaking communities, but besides the articles found by Rankiri, there's also some book coverage, also in German. Pcap ping 17:24, 28 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.