The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW Tone 11:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countries whose citizens have never won a Nobel Prize[edit]

Countries whose citizens have never won a Nobel Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unencyclopedic list of WP:TRIVIA. Previously prodded, but the article creator removed the prod template with the rationale that "This information at it not easily available. Information gathered by comparing the Nobel Winners list at the Nobelprize.org with Wikipedia countries by population." (It isn't easily available because it's about as needed as "List of actors who never won an Academy Award" or "List of Presidents of the United States who never made a state visit to Luxembourg", and the information-gathering method flies right in the face of WP:NOR. But I digress.) In truth, I'd love to speedy this as patently unnecessary, but it doesn't fit any speedy criterion that I can see. But it's still a no-brainer delete, methinks. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trivial intersection of traits. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A list of countries whose citizens have won a Nobel Prize might be useful, but this is just unencyclopedic list cruft. Astronaut (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean like this? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is a very silly list. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pure trivia. Carrite (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Serves no real purpose and is trivia. scope_creep (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, dubious encyclopedic value, unsourced (the information does not appear in the source given). Hairhorn (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable intersection. a list of countries whose citizens have won, yes. a list (if any), of major industrialized countries without awards, that would be notable. but most countries dont have the support to produce nobel winning citizens. most of them would move to countries which can support research.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial list. --Crunch (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as useless trivia list. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:48, 21 August 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) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Carlucci[edit]

David Carlucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I declined a speedy deletion on this but he fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate for political office. Gets some local news mentions in campaign coverage. As do most candidates. Nothing biographical to meet WP:BIO. Mkativerata (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Minor public official, not really a politician yet, but certainly not notable enough in any respect. scope_creep (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lack of reliable sources to establish notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Cindamuse (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• REDIRECT According to WP:POLITICIAN: "candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." A quick search found these sources: LINK1, LINK2 Wbennin (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I fully agree with the redirect in principle, but I can't find an appropriate redirect target.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:01, 23 August 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) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kite Flying Society[edit]

Kite Flying Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable band. Article previously speedily deleted back in 2006. Since then, they have won a minor local award, but otherwise have escaped major notice. Current article claims tenuous links to other notable acts but those are unreferenced and notability is not inherited anyway. A search reveals plenty of links to MP3/video sites and social networking sites, but nothing substantial in reliable sources. Fails WP:BAND. Astronaut (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable band that also fails WP:RS. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree links to other more notable acts is not in itsef able tp establish notability simply non notable. VirtualRevolution (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't see anything much worth recording there. Peridon (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks coverage in reliables sources. The win in a local music competition isn't enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 23 August 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 as a blatant hoax (G3). Mkativerata (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Lanitis[edit]

Sol Lanitis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Possibly a hoax, a search reveals no relevant hits. A quick search of recent transfers shows no one of that or similar name. Quasihuman (talk) 22:22, 20 August 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) 17:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CA Anti-Spyware[edit]

CA Anti-Spyware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

completely fails to show any semblance of notability, with no evidence it passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (changed from Merge to CA Technologies, and Redirect). I've added a dozen references from high-quality reliable sources (Infoworld, Computerworld, PC magazine and a couple of books), and could easily add a dozen more, as there are actually numerous articles which review the product in detail, or describe the acquisition by CA and subsequent renaming. Clicking on "find sources-News" above, yields over 80 such articles, in high quality venues such as ABC News, CNET, Information Week, PC Magazine and many others. The product itself is notable as one of the first anti-malware tools. That said, now that it is part of CA, it would be ok to merge this information there, and redirect both this and PestPatrol to CA Technologies. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - of note, this is the 2nd AfD for this article, the first one was here - 10 "Keep"s, not a single Delete other than the nom. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The last one being in 2005, filled with votes/comments which would now be seen as ridiculous and inane. Since you're obviously so concerned about this poor article's wellbeing, to the point where you've removed PRODs despite not actually doing what it says on the box and fixing the problems, would you mind providing these high-quality sources? Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the comments from the last AfD highlighted the fact that this is a notable product, has nearly a million ghits, and that with cleanup, a decent article could be had. These are arguments grounded in policy which work as well today. The Prod box which I removed says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." -which is exactly what I did - I removed it, explaining that a merge and redirect would be preferable. I also added references and otherwise cleaned up the article by removing red links and wikilinking others. You, OTOH, re-added a removed Prod, which is against policy, didn't bother to look for sources before going to AfD which is what the guide to deletion recommends, and are now trying to personalize this AfD. I would strongly caution you against doing that, because not only does it not make your arguments any stronger, it pisses me off. And when I'm pissed off, I can be as unpleasant as you are, believe me. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1) I'm not trying to be unpleasant, 2) thank you for the threats, and 3) I apologise for the re-added prod, I didn't realise (stupid as it sounds) that one had been added before). Lets look at the last AfD, shall we? One raw vote simply containing the word "Keep". "A significant program, and the article is not without merit. File on cleanup for NPOV.", which isn't really a rationale so much as a dust-jacket blurb. "Keep This gets 805,000 Google hits!", when google hits are not evidence. "Keep. I have this program here at work. Absolutely fantastic. It works in real time blocking spyware and gives an audible notice that it's working". Two more raw keep votes, and another OH MY GOD GOOGLE HITS! vote (and yes, I'm calling them votes because that's what they were). The last AfD did not in any way establish or provide evidence that it is a notable program, google hits are irrelevant, and with cleanup, a copy could be printed off, mulched and turned into adequate toilet paper.

  Of the five sources we currently have in the article (this is after you've improved it) we have this, which covers the purchase of CA Anti-Spyware's previous developer and gives so little coverage to Anti-Spyware it wouldn't know the term significant coverage if it bit it on the arse, this, which is not only covering the previous version of this software but doing so in a completely tangential way, this, again, covering the company and purchase, very briefly touching on the product, this, where somebody at the company is providing a useful soundbite and this, which is a primary source, for crying out loud. Significant coverage in third party sources, please. Ironholds (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The distinction you are drawing between the "previous developer" or the "previous version" is meaningless. This is the same product, renamed after an acquisition, and the previous product name redirects to this article. The role the product played in exposing Facebook's "spying" is dominant enough to warrant mention in the Facebook Beacon article, so your characterization of an article highlighting this fact as a "soundbite" is inaccurate, to say the least. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  But again, significant coverage. None of those sources are directly about the subject (which isn't essential) and none of them give more than a couple of lines about it (which is). Ironholds (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I've cited and linked to half a dozen detailed product reviews. There are dozens more which you can eaisly find by clicking on "find sources", above. HupHollandHup (talk)

• Redirect to CA Technologies. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the sourcing in the article indicates that this has sufficient coverage to exist as a standalone article. Notability is established. - Whpq (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Work done since the AFD was initiated appear to have resolved any notability issues.--PinkBull 04:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Excellent improvement work makes this worth keeping now. Passes WP:GNG by some margin. Disappointing that it took two AfDs to get there though. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 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 as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Yegerman[edit]

Fredrick Yegerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Either a hoax or a non-notable BLP. Totally unsourced, only substantial claim in the text is impossible, and this supposedly pioneering biologist appears never to have been named in any papers or books. Only google hits are for this article, copies of it, and links to it. bobrayner (talk) 21:23, 20 August 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information forensics[edit]

Information forensics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is a somewhat complex AFD; basically, I want to delete this article but, as it is big and well established, I think it probably needs discussion.

Recently I have been working extensively on digital forensics topics and this is one of the articles that falls under it's umbrella.

The article was created in 2005 with the edit summary IF: a new field of research - in my searches for references (and personal knowledge of the field) I can find no real sourcing for this particular area of study.

The main reference I can find is this journal. After reading a few of the publications it seems that IF, in this sense, is simply used as a synonym for computer forensics and for digital forensics in general. A Google scholar search and a dig through Athens pulls up no reasonable citations to support this as a separate field.

Finally; the content that exists is mostly "fluff" - as best I can make out this is a very broad concept of "computer forensics as applied to human actions". Sourcing this is a nightmare. Very little of the content can be adequately sourced for merging into other articles.

Based on the above I would like to delete the article to

Sorry for the lengthy rationale :) Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to computer forensics. Bearian'sBooties 03:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge the non-essayish, and any content that is actually in the referenced sources, to computer forensics. First Light (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article has zero referenced sources and is clearly an essay. I don't see any reason to try to cram any of this content into another article. Propaniac (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just spent too much of my life trying to see if this was worth keeping. Insufficient coverage in secondary sources is my main gripe. Bigger digger (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to Errant for the rationale though, I like a proper explanation! Bigger digger (talk) 17:50, 27 August 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) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blaine Higgs[edit]

Blaine Higgs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Jimmymaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable "politician" that has never been elected, and candidate for New Brunswick general election, 2010. Hence, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Neither are his other activities notable. No significant coverage. Prod removed with

Add info about Higgs career and education. Establish credentials as a major business leader in New Brunswick - director of Canaport LNG, a very important NB landmark.

Christopher Connor (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem notable despite the business position. Not notable yet as politician. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice toward re-creating the article if Mr. Higgs is elected. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN or any other notability guideline as yet. PKT(alk) 17:27, 24 August 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 have discared every spa vote. This leaves the argument that there are sources and this swayed one delete to a keep but there has been a decent analysis of the sources and the argument that they do not count as RSs for notability appears well founded and has not been challenged by any experienced editor. The policy based consensus from experienced editors is that this is not properly sourced so the counsensus is clear Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birkensnake[edit]

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)).

Birkensnake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod, by the creator, with no improvement to the article. Original prod reason - No evidence that the publication, as opposed to one of the entries, is in any way notable. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I vote to keep. This is a notable publication as it has showcased several important authors and it also won the premier literary award of its class last year. If this publication isn't notable, what small press literary magazine is? Flash Bang Man (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD was malformatted; Flash Bang Man added their comment first and then the IP came back to add a deletion reason. I re-formatted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 4 reviews and 1 award? Isn't this notable? Lionel (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the Micro Award may not be notable. It's a $500 prize. Anyway, I just prodded it. Lionel (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI - I have listed Micro Award as an AfD (contested prod). --23 Benson (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable per reviews and awards, Sadads (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sole award was not for this publication.Lionel (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Semantics Flash Bang Man (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many reviews throughout the net and several awards - certainly notable. 79.52.145.62 (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — 79.52.145.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lionel (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this vote was this editor's first edit. They only have 3 total.Lionel (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we should go by the strength of his argument, not his number of edits.JakobBorliner22 (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • — JakobBorliner22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lionel (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those sometimes have a lot to do with each other, and that goes for you too (with ten edits, half of them related to this article). Drmies (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I trust that my opinions will be weighed on their merit, not on my number of edits.JakobBorliner22 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The significant number of reviews and references make it notable. I would like to see the article fleshed out. EgglandManor (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any reviews besides blogs?Lionel (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of the reviews I clicked on weren't blogs.JakobBorliner22 (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes they were--if you clicked on the ones mentioned in the article. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sources there now aren't blogs. If you would like to add a blog as a source, it would be best to discuss it on the talk page first. That way you can get a consensus on whether it is reliable or not.HeartSWild (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • — HeartSWild (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Doing a little source checking reveals that Birkensnake (as well as several other flash fiction articles) suffer from extremely poor sourcing, i.e. blogs and personal websites. It's hard to find significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Hopefully voters here take this into consideration... Lionel (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The reviews are blogs: not WP:RS. The "award" was not for Birkensnake, it was for "The Children’s Factory" (it's a red link because it too is not notable). In any event, the Micro Award is not notable either, and it is not a premiere literary award by any measure.Lionel (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the reasons mentioned above. I checked out all the refrences currently used and they are all valid. Magazine exceeds notability criteria.JakobBorliner22 (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (Change to keep for reasons explained below, in response to the additional reviews). Non-notable magazine. The second edition was noted by two bloggers, [1] and [2] (yes, JakobBorliner, those are blogs, and I linked the term so you can see what it is), and that's it. Lionelt's point about the award is well taken. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think birkensnake meets the notability criteria with the reviews and awards on the web. Beastwarts (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think a lot of people who are voting !keep are confused, so let's clear this up - Birkensnake has NOT won any awards. One story in a single issue has won. The publication itself has not won anything. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't speak for everyone here, but I never took this to mean that the magazine itself won an award. The article in question very clearly states that one of the magazine's stories received an award. What's the issue?JakobBorliner22 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I′m one of the editors of Birkensnake (Brian Conn). A Google alert for “Birkensnake” brought me here. I edited the article a couple of days ago, primarily to include the other editor′s name, and have checked the discussion occasionally since then. I don′t have any argument to make about whether Birkensnake is or is not notable, but I wanted to set some things straight and clarify some facts in case they will further the discussion:

1. There seems to be an insinuation that some of the people voting to keep the article are agents of Birkensnake. In fact, neither I nor the other editor has had anything to do with this article (except my minor edit, as described above). I suppose one of our contributors or friends might have, but if so nobody has said anything to me about it.
2. We have not won (or applied for) any awards as a magazine.
3. Since the question of reviews keeps coming up: Issue 2 got long reviews in Big Other, Art + Culture, and Rat′s Reading, plus shorter notices in HTMLGIANT, Luna Digest's Fictionaut Blog, and PubliCola, and also a profile/interview thing in Black Clock. The working definition of the term “blog” seems to be in dispute here; I don′t offer any opinion about whether these are blogs or not. 24.250.21.249 (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• — 24.250.21.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lionel (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for weighing in. Do you have URLs for those reviews? Blogs by themselves are usually not notable, but a bunch of them might add up to something. Good luck getting the third issue together. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, should have said: Big Other, Art + Culture, Rat's Reading, HTMLGIANT, Fictionaut, PubliCola, Black Clock. Thanks, Drmies – Issue 3 binding begins tomorrow! 24.250.21.249 (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Change to keep. While these are indeed blogs, some of them are better than others; I am favorably impressed with the Art + Culture blog, and the number of positive reviews is good. To many of the other keep voters: the way to sway other editors is by presenting evidence, not by yelling at them or making arguments from taste. Brian, all the best, and I'll be looking for a copy in my mailbox! ;) Drmies (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 18:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Welcome to the club, Drmies. I'm glad you came around. :) Flash Bang Man (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No comment. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am a fan of the magazine so maybe I'm biased, but I think it's certainly a notable lit magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StaceyGanmons (talk • contribs) 08:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• — StaceyGanmons (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lionel (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I, like the editor, found this page with google. At least it's giving you free press, right? I've been surfing wikipedia for a few years now, but this is my first edit. Take my opinion for what it's worth. The question comes down to whether or not the reviews and the award make this entry viable. There appeared to be some confusion as to what the award was for. The way the entry currently reads, it's very clear that the award was for a story within Birkensnake and not for Birkensnake itself. The entry may not have always been that clear, but it is now. Moreover, it's still significant for Birkensnake that a story within Birkensnake received an award. Maybe not as significant had Birkensnake itself won the award, but it still adds some substance to the claim that Birkensnake is viable as an entry. As for the reviews, there is a glut of reviews on the web. It's debatable which ones are considered blogs and which ones are considered reliable. There's not a clear distinction between the two, even as defined by wikipedia. Between the award (for a story within Birkensnake) and the many independent reviews, Birkensnake is undoubtedly viable as a wikipedia entry. EdwinChowder (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• — EdwinChowder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lionel (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete According to the article, the first issue received little attention. The second - more, but how much? And the third isn't out yet. Could it perhaps be that this article has appeared in time to give a boost to issue three? (Perhaps I spend too much time dealing with spam...) Oh yes, "binding begins tomorrow". While I do wish success to Birkensnake, I don't feel that this article fits in with Wikipedia's policies yet. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is it with these anti-snakes and their conspiracy theories? I think you owe the editor an apology. Especially after he even identified himself! I am in no way connected to birkensnake. I only created the article after doing an edit on micro award. it was the one publisher of a winner that didn't have its own page. it didnt take a whole lot of effort to find info on birkensnake either.Flash Bang Man (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a writer myself, I have nothing against literary magazines. As a Wikipedian, I don't feel this one is particularly notable yet. Couple more issues, maybe something more will turn up. There are plenty of things one can turn up info on that will never get a place on Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't write for the New York Times, do you? I wasn't talking about whether or not Birkensnake is worthy with my last post. I was talking about you loose accusation that the Birkensnake editor was using this as publicity. Are you going to apologize for this completely baseless and slanderous claim?Flash Bang Man (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flash, anyone who has spent any time at all watching AfD has seen promotional articles so Peridon's speculation, and that's all it was, was not improper. I've noticed your tone becomming increasingly defensive and maybe we all should calm down a little.Lionel (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your right. It just came accross kind of like an accusation. Flash Bang Man (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP even the reviews that are blogs (and not all of them are) easily fit within wiki's criteria for a reliably source. they are blogs by people respected in literature and short literature, not blogs by random nobodys. the only place where blogs are prohibited by wikipedia are in biographies. this is not a biography. an easy KEEP.Cartersfriendly (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is very, very incorrect. Blogs can be reliable sources but that depends on the blog. Please read WP:RS and the associated discussions; your broad statement that blogs are prohibited only in BLPs has no basis in any WP guideline or consensus. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're both saying the same thing here and you're both correct in that blogs in some cases are reliable sources. We're not dealing with a biography here, so that part isn't relevantHeartSWild (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Cartersfriendly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing Admin Discussion seems to have attracted a number of WP:SPAs. Of course their contributions are just as important as any other editor, although they may not be as familiar with such policies as WP:SPS or WP:RS, or even WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Lionel (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You even had me believing that blogs were prohibited as refs until another user posted otherwise and I went back and reread the guidance. cartersfriendly is right-the blogs used here fit the criteria as reliable sources. they are all of high quality, written by writers or editors highly respected in their field (writing and short stories), and they are only about those topics (writing, stories). case closed. did you actually read them before deleting them? show me what line they violate in wikipedia's reliable source guidance. i'm glad one of the users who previously voted to delete actually went through and read the refs (now removed by you) and concluded that they were reliable and that the magazine is notable. it's moot point anyway, the reviews you left weren't blogs, proving that this magazine has received the required media attention to make it notable.Flash Bang Man (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is rather ironic given the post below is by one of the blog writers and even he says his blog doesn't qualify. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did he say that every blog doesn't qualify? Flash Bang Man (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you indicated that they all qualify. They don't. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall saying that. please show me where I did. Flash Bang Man (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second post above this - "the blogs used here fit the criteria as reliable sources. they are all of high quality, written by writers or editors highly respected in their field (writing and short stories), and they are only about those topics (writing, stories). case closed." (emphasis added) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that all of the blogs used here are reliable sources is not the same thing as saying that all blogs are. Flash Bang Man (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics. This is beginning to remind me of the current debate about the Fox News donation to the Republicans and their moving target as to why they don't consider it newsworthy. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not semantics. Me saying that the blogs used here meet reliable source standards is NOT the same thing as saying that ALL blogs ever written do. End of story.Flash Bang Man (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and please don't compare me to republicans or fox news. Flash Bang Man (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm the author of one of the blogs referenced as having reviewed the second issue. My blog is not notable. Publicola isn't exactly a blog, however. They are a news org that uses wordpress as their publishing platform. They do original reporting, mostly on Seattle and Washington state politics, but occasionally on cultural stuff like Birkensnake. Maybe in a couple more years Birkensnake will improve their profile (they do excellent work), but they aren't there yet. A couple of reviews, even on places like HTMLGiant aren't much in the way of notability. TheKingRat (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentI've never posted my opinion on here, but what the heck. The whole crux of this debate comes down to the sources of this entry being blogs, thus making them unreliable sources, thus making this entry not notable. This not correct. According to WP:IRS, blogs can be considered reliable sources if they meet certain wickets. NOTE: I don't see any blogs currently being used as sources for this entry. But since it seems to be such an issue of contention if you would like to use a blog as a source, it would be best to put the link on the talk page and discuss why it would or why it wouldn't be a reliable source. Some blogs are, some blogs aren't. I hope that helps.HeartSWild (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe entry is notable based on the sources currently used. It looks like some additional reliable sources may have been removed in error. There is confusion of both sides of this discussion on what a reliable source is. I encourage everyone to check out: WP:SPS.HeartSWild (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your encouragement. I assure you, though, that after 47,000 edits on Wikipedia I have a reasonably good idea of what a reliable source is, and I am happy that it took you less than a dozen edits to learn this. Let me assure you of something else: there is very little confusion, on the side of the nay-sayers, current and former, of what a reliable source is. Happy editing; I hope you stick around after this AfD is over. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been on wikipedia for a while, just never created an account. Thank you for the warm welcome!HeartSWild (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• References Duotrope is a quote from (apparently) the publishers of Birkensnake. "BIG OTHER is an online forum of iconoclasts and upstarts". (Forums are not usually considered reliable.) Publicola looks reasonable. Getting there, a bit at least. Micro Award is notability for a story. Note to whoever tagged the statement about the magazine having little media note for its first issue: that's almost impossible to reference, but is a sign of honesty. The 'more' subsequent is potentially capable of referencing, and needs to be referenced reliable (by Wikipedia's standards, please - it's our ball and our rules). Peridon (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed for most of your points. At the end of the day, I think this is a notable entry. Part of this articles for deletion process is to improve articles that are notable. I think we did that here.HeartSWild (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting there. I would like to say keep. Just a bit more... Peridon (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So where are we?

1. duotrope NOT a source for notability as it's a primary source
2. publicola OK
3. bigother NOT RS: it's a forum
4. microaward NOT a source for notability as no significant coverage about Birk.
5. official website NOT a source for notability as it's a primary source

Having one source for notability fails WP:N as mutiple sources are required. Lionel (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I currently see 3 reviews/references being used that are reliable sources per WP:SPS. I am not counting micro award or the official website as they are there only as sources of information, not notability.HeartSWild (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art + Culture, Big Other-not an internet message board/forum-and PubliCola are all valid references per wikipedia's standards. Flash Bang Man (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Clock, mentioned above by the editor, also looks to be a reliable subscription-based publication. Dialectric (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Doesn't it state on Big Others About page: "BIG OTHER is an online forum"? (BTW Peridon already pointed this out.) This isn't exactly open to debate when the source describes itself thus. NEW DEVELOPMENT on Art+Culture - see below. Lionel (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may describe itself as an online forum, but if you had actually taken the time to read it you would have noticed that it isn't an "online forum" in the sense that most people use it. It isn't a forum/message board where users make posts or discuss topics. Its an online forum in the sense that they have about 20 or so authors that write stories/articles for the website. Not fully checking out a source when you dont like it seems to be a common theme with you. Flash Bang Man (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Black Clock is an interview of the editor. That is not independent and thus the source cannot be used for notability. Lionel (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now interviews by independent sources are no longer valid? What other rules do you want to make up in this discussion? Flash Bang Man (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we tell Diane Sawyer?Flash Bang Man (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Independent reviews look legit and the award to Michael Stewart is significant. Bryanskunk (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• — Bryanskunk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT NEW DEVELOPMENT... After reading Art+Culture again I noticed this: "Last week, Brian Conn and Joanna Ruocco, editors of Birkensnake, contributed two Guest Curator posts ... to Art+Culture." Because A+C is publishing Conn & Ruocco's contributions, it casts doubt on A+Cs objectivity and independence. Is this review quid pro quo? Afterall, the review of Birk. comes only a week after Conn & Ruocco contributed. Because of this potential conflict of interest A+C cannot be considered as a source for notability. That means there is only 1 source for Birk., thus it fails notability and per policy should be deleted. Lionel (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For anyone counting, that actually leaves 3 reliable sources. Flash Bang Man (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation. Does this from A+C seem a little promotional? "The print editions of Birkensnake are four dollars each in the United States and Canada and six dollars each in every other part of the world; it makes a lot of sense to buy a print edition of Birkensnake (ital. mine)." Buy is a hyperlink to an order form. Kinda pushy? Especially since the magazine is free online. Lionel (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now he wants to discuss whether or not its a good buy. Flash Bang Man (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Despite trying, I can't quite see sufficient, meaningful sources. No point getting into a debate about it, I'm just not quite convinced. Still, I hope someone userfies this and makes a decent article in their space, ready for the NYT mention that would get it over the hill. And good luck to the closing admin. Bigger digger (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Digger, you are exactly right, in all ways. Good luck to the closing admin, seeing through all these SPAs, personal attacks, and wikilawyering. If it has to be userfied, I'll gladly take it. I know the editor! ;) Drmies (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the criteria then we need to delete around 90% of wikipedia. Flash Bang Man (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Apology I apologize for anything rude I said here or for offending aynone. But when your first accused of creating an wikipedia article for profit and then compared to Fox News and Republicans its easy to lose your temper. i hope you can see where i'm coming from. Flash Bang Man (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since no one appreciates my edits and I just piss everyone off I'm going to retire from wikipedia. it was nice meeting all of you. all the best! Flash Bang Man (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • im sorry to see you go. thanks for creating the articleCartersfriendly (talk) 23:31, 27 August 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) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jalali[edit]

Christopher Jalali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

OTRS request for deletion (2010082010006879) and no particularly good reason to keep it; those competitions that he's won have been minor, and the sources barely cover WP:BIO's requirements. I'm particularly leery about the reliability of at least one source because it was written by the guy who wrote the article. Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per request, and due to lack of multiple third-party sources that demonstrate notability. First Light (talk) 19:02, 24 August 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) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christel Miller[edit]

Christel Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not notable filmaker fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Lede says she is a filmmaker but has no notable film credits whatsoever. Only sources are Sallyport, her college mag, and ZAMI, a non-RS website. No significant coverage, no multiple sources. First AfD was no consensus. I speculate the voters found her to be "promising." Well, more than a year later and... nothing. I regret AfDing a fellow Bruin, but we're building an encyclopedia, not a yearbook. Lionel (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Lionel (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing in the article proves her notability. It claims she is a filmmaker but no actual films are documented to have been made. Google search reveals nothing additional. --Crunch (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Crunch. The subject is described as a filmmaker, yet she has no listing in the Internet Movie Database. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only substance in this article is her undergraduate career. No demonstrable accomplishments, much less impact as a filmmaker. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While happy to congratulate her on her accomplishements as a student and intern, she has not reached the point where those accomplishments merit inclusion in Wikipedia... failing WP:ENT, WP:GNG, and subsequently WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:43, 23 August 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) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antonette Goroch[edit]

Antonette Goroch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

unclear notability: as the article says - "somewhat popular in the underground scene" Melaen (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Wiki libs (talk) 17:40, 23 August 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) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Scally[edit]

Dylan Scally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

unclear notability Melaen (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any references that show notability for this unsourced BLP. Some of the article's external links don't even mention him, for others it's just a passing mention. Jakejr (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found no reliable sources that show subject passes WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 21:22, 24 August 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. Tone 11:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby mendez[edit]

Ruby mendez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Probable hoax. No refs, no IMDb page, no Fashion Model Directory page; official site link goes nowhere and a G-search offers nothing. Furthermore, several of the modeling claims are clearly false, as this person has never been a Victoria's Secret Angel or Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue covermodel and has never appeared on any Forbes earnings lists, let alone topped them year after year.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. As the article says: best known for her self-proclaim title as Extreme Extraordinaire Super Mega Model --Melaen (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Even her own homepage leads to a placeholder. Google image turns up absolutely nothing, nor does a regular Google search. Looks like a hoax to me. - OldManNeptune⚓ (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as hoax. Later, she attended the prestigious Animalista School Of Extreme Talent in Puerto Rico. Carrite (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely a hoax. Only other "contributions" by creator was to a page which they blanked, which was then reverted by another editor, then vandalized with false info by this editor, before being reverted by another editor again. Carrite (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOWBALL, why was this not just speedied? --Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:00, 21 August 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) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Careerstallion[edit]

Careerstallion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

website with 2500 - 3000 hits monthly as stated in the article...? that seem scarcely notable Melaen (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, barely coherent spam, doubtful notability. Hairhorn (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spam. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 06:02, 25 August 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) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sribharath[edit]

Sribharath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

dubious notability Melaen (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional bio of a non-notabile individual. fails WP:BIO--Sodabottle (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Searched English and Telugu language resulting in a lack of reliable sources to establish notability. Cindamuse (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like a promotional. No third RS coverage. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. Essentially a spam article, created by a single purpose editor virtually all of whose edits have consisted of adding spam for www.karomasti.com. Probably autobiographical. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:10, 24 August 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 I withdraw this nomination Martyst111 (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French Union of Film Critics Awards 2001[edit]

French Union of Film Critics Awards 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

French Union of Film Critics Awards 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

How is it notable? there's no link to main organization. Martyst111 (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This seems to be a well established and well covered film awards program. Just because there is not yet an article on the organization or the awards program doesn't seem to me to be sufficient justification to delete these articles. Wikipedia is always unfinished. --Bsherr (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Have we met before? Maybe in Cannes? Oh well I'm supposed to assume good faith and point you into the general direction of the International Critic's Week, which was properly linked from the articles. keep. Ideally, the whole bunch of Critics' awards can be merged into one table, rows for years, columns for prizes - anyone? East of Borschov 19:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha. Lovely. --Bsherr (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can it be merged to International Critic's Week I think. Both articles. Martyst111 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found the organization article. It's called French Syndicate of Cinema Critics. I merged ALL the content of the two articles and from French wiki there as a user, called East of Borschov, suggested . These articles are not needed now because the same content is already in French Syndicate of Cinema Critics now--Martyst111 (talk) 19:39, 20 August 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) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pepper[edit]

Peter Pepper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Primary contributor has the same username as the record company that represents this individual, so possible COI is at play. All of the sources and external links are either self-published material or links to user-submitted information (ie: urban dictionary). No notability has been established. nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication of third party coverage whatsoever. - Vianello (Talk) 20:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - clearly fails all tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• on it's own this should be redirected to his band but his band's article is likely to be deleted so the redirect would then be deleted so best to just say delete duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 24 August 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) 03:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retard-O-Bot[edit]

Retard-O-Bot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Notability not established. References and external links are self-made profile pages on myspace, twitter, etc..Also appears that the record label has a wikipedia account (User:MangledMedia) that has made substantial contributions and/or created this page. nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication of third party coverage in any form. - Vianello (Talk) 20:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam lacking independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 24 August 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. Subject clearly notable but the argument that this is a synthesis and therefore original research has not been refuted. Therefore this may be recreated from scratch but the advice from the discussion is to look at a wider article or include this into another subject as sourcing for a specific article of this type is clearly difficult Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stray cow problem in India[edit]

Stray cow problem in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The article is factually incorrect. The author combined data from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. WP:SYNTHESIS applies here. Vipinhari || talk 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not at all factually incorrect. Any inquiry through international or Indian media will prove that Stray cows are a serious problem in India and a matter of utmost concern for politicians, economists, lawmakers and journalists. Each of the source referenced here reaches the same conclusion on its own. Any one can see it for themselves.
The main cause, the religious belief, that holds the cow holy (otherwise they would be no problem like in other all countries) also needs to be addressed and inquired into, which itself has been a source to communal tension ( a secular scholar D. N. Jha, who wrote The Myth of the Holy Cow is living under police-protection due to threat of Hindu fundamentalists. Wikipedia, which is uncensored cannot be subjected to such pressure.) Jon Ascton  (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the issue of 'Stray cows' is the most serious problem in India that everyone tried and failed to solve? Vipinhari || talk 19:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not the MOST serious but a serious problem all the same, as any unbiased person can see for himself. That means Wikipedia has a page about it  Jon Ascton  (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use <s>old text</s> to alter the comments you've already posted, so that others will not get confused. My reply was based on that word (utmost) which you've removed in this edit. Vipinhari || talk 01:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. India does have a lot of stray cows roaming the street. We should keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJISBEAST (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep. It badly needs a cleanup ("Of course such milk is absurdly low in quantity and quality and hence a source of malnutrition" - charming) and factual information (just how many cows are too many? numbers, for example). Right now it's more like a collection of old wives tales. But I agree cows are evil! East of Borschov 19:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• According to New York Times the figures in Delhi alone is at least 5000. Added Citation. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/world/asia/05india.html  Jon Ascton  (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominator hasn't explained what the new conclusion was. I don't see it as synthesis at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - numerous documentaries have documented the issue. Brown people are not all the same. Bearian'sBooties 03:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Brown people? The same? What? The Rhymesmith (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - needs much work to remove the tone of a rant against Hindu religious beliefs (for example the word "problem" in the title is POV in itself), and the paragraph about cow urine seems completely off-topic. Perhaps something like Stray dogs in Bangkok or Rats in New York City is the way ahead for this article. Astronaut (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a legitimate phenomenon and an article should be there to cover it. The problem is Jon Ascton is approaching the article from the angle "I can't believe they are still doing this", which colours the article through out. And he extrapolates news from one city to all of the country. (Not an isolated phenomena: he did something similar in the Kundi (stealing power). Even after explaining that the term "Kundi" is punjabi and is not referred to as such in other states of India, he has not modified the article. Just to show his understanding of Indian subjects is flawed) There are two problems with this article a)There is a "stray cattle" problem in india not just "stray cows" b) The "sacred cow" is one of the reasons for this (obviousls bulls and buffaloes are not sacred, but they are still left to wander the roads).[3],[4],[5],[6]. These issues can be taken care of by normal case of editing. So deletion is not the solution.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Notable topic, but the article has been written as a synthesis -- needs some editing. utcursch | talk 09:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. title says "Stray cow problem in India" and reference given is for delhi and gurgaon only.Gobade.abhay1 (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not dispute that this problem exists. That being said, I don't think that this is the article. The creator of the article seems to have curiously intense interest in the origins of the Hindu religious belief in the sacred status of cows (see the talk page and Reference Desk), and while that in itself is certainly no reason to delete an article, it comes coupled with the pov that the religious belief is a "stupid superstition" (which is presumably why the article creator included unrelated data on the consumption and marketing of cow urine in the article), and as such, the original article was a synthesized piece meant to ridicule Hinduism. Having gone through the article and eliminated much not sourced or germane to the actual topic, there's precious little in the article which does not contravene WP:SYNTH. The Rhymesmith (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SYN without prejudice to creating an encyclopedic article on Stray animals in India. India has a problem with stray animals just like many other countries. focusing only on stray cows is not fair to the dogs, cats, snakes , sparrows, pigeons , rats, monkeys etc who run free all over India.[7], [8], [9], [10]--Wikireader41 (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep::Stray Cows in India, unlike any other animal are a special social-political problem.

Cow Urine has been removed. That's seems OK. I did this section to give an insight into mind of the majority community. Is not this directly connected with stray-cow problem ? What other country has cow-urine as soft-drink ? This is a curios phenomenon itself. It has been talked over in media, why Wikipedia should be an exception ?

A search at Youtube with "Stray Cows in India" will bring a flood of videos, recorded by people, tourists and natives, news agencies not connected with each other. All will show stray cows wandering on streets in almost all Indian towns, not just a town or two.

Similarly a search at google with same entry will show (if one is open-minded, that is) that problem does exist all over India, common people are agitated with this problem, the problem is hot-issue.

 Jon Ascton  (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stray cows in India are indeed a unique phenomenon and problem distinct from stray dogs and cats, because of the religious circumstances which do not obtain elsewhere in the world (except Nepal, perhaps). I don't object to an article on the topic> I do suggest that it's either deleted and recreated or expanded and rewritten (without the synthesis and original research). The Rhymesmith (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

almost all Indian towns, not just a town or two. This is what people are troubled about. You are making sweeping statements without sources to back them up. Instead of taking potshots at others (if one is open-minded) why don't you go and find sources that back up yours assertions.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The topic is notable, but this is one of those rare instances where WP:TNT might be applicable. Seriously take a look at the referencing (despite the efforts of The Rhymesmith to clean up the article. Here are a couple of examples:

From article "The high number[1] of cows wandering on towns, villages and even metros[2]".

Ref [1] is: " - number of cows in India: 200 million [Times of India aug 04]; - number of buffaloes in India: 90 million [Times of India aug 04]"

Ref [2] is: "Cows are frequently allowed to wander where they please, even in cities, where Indians tend to view them much the way Americans and Europeans regard pigeons — an unpleasant but intractable part of the urban landscape. "

How on earth can the above two refs be combined to give the sentence in our article?

From article "There have been instances when rumours that a cow's tail has been cut caused riots so serious that army interference has to be used.[7]"

Whether ref [7] is real or not doesn't seem too relevant, but a "key" point in the article is based on the fact that some rumours have been reported?

Given this kind of synthesis that's going on in the article, it's better to delete it now, and let someone with some grasp of the subject write an article. —SpacemanSpiff 07:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody with "some grasp on problem" will hurt your feelings even more ! Then you will not even find a loophole to get this eyesore off Wikipedia.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Jon you only show your ignorance about the problem with your comment. If Hindus worship cows its only POV pushers who would consider stray cows a 'Problem' and title the article as such. somebody who had NPOV in mind would have called it 'Strays cows in India' Why are cows so special ???? Monkeys and certain snakes ( cobras) also have a special religious importance to Hindus. Youtube videos are not considered RS. also more people die due to rabies caused by stray dogs than ever get affected by stray cows. why do stray cows deserve an article and not the stray dogs ??? are we going to have separate articles on Stray monkeys in India, Stray dogs in India Stray rats in India, Stray cats in India and so on ??? only alternative is to delete and recreate an encyclopedic article on the entire stray animal issue ( with a subsection on cows ). the correlation between stray cows and Hindu beliefs is not scientific and conjecture at best. would like to see some high quality scientific work which suggests this issue is caused by Hindu religious beliefs.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it ASAP. I don't care anymore what you do to this article (it has been mutilated to nothingness anyway ). But I have learnt my lesson - Wikipedia is not Uncensored.
  This was what happened when Dr D. N. Jha came out with The Myth of Holy Cow ( by the way Wikipedia has no review about this very important book, now we know why ! ) In fact I had plans to make a page on Jha's book, but seeing the conditions here, I would rather leave you alone with your precious sentiments  Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you have learnt a lesson that WP:NPOV and WP:OR are pillars of WP. Finding "Problems" in certain cultures and writing articles on them will run into trouble. I am pretty sure an article on Assfucking problem among western cultures would not last very long either.--Wikireader41 (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, in spite of author's recent request to close as "delete". The main problem with the article is the horribly POV title (which doesn't meet naming policy for neutrality - WP:NDESC), and the lack of balanced content. An article titled Cows in India or Cattle in India probably merits a WP article. It would cover the overall treatment of cows in India, veneration by some religions and people, laws against killing cows in some regions, and yes, the problem with strays (and also the idea, if sourced, that some people don't see it as a problem), and the situation with non-'cow' cattle. First Light (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Wikireader41 and SpacemanSpiff. There may be something notable for an article or two, but given the article's narrowly chosen topic and the WP:SYN issues here, it would be best to blow it up and start over. It's a conflation of two only loosely related issues, that of Stray animals in India and Cow in Hinduism (which is mostly what Cattle in religion is at the moment). In (some parts of) India there are all kinds of stray animals besides cows, including buffaloes, dogs, sheep, and monkeys. Whatever the unmentioned "problem" in the title is, it's certainly less serious with cows than dogs. Shreevatsa (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have moved the title to more NPOV Stray cows in India--Wikireader41 (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's generally not a good idea to make such radical changes to an article while AfD is in progress… improvements are good, but some changes can invalidate parts of the earlier discussion and cause confusion. In any case, for what it's worth, I still think it's good in this case to delete and start over with a more general stray-animal article. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and broaden its coverage Literally speaking, I have seen stray cats, deers, racoons, opposums, snakes and other animals in western countries. it is a cultural issue not perceived to be so much a problem by Indians as may be by western tourists. Compared to animals which do and dont stray in western countries, dogs and cows can be considered stray animals in India. may be Indians appreciate and understand animals are not happy when imprisoned. in any case, since it is factual and it is not just cows, i would broaden the coverage to Stray animals in India. --CarTick 16:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree a Stray animals in India article would be good to have, but I voted Delete here (WP:TNT) -- if you look at the history of the article you'll see why. :-) Shreevatsa (talk)

That is fine with me. I am not going to do it though. :) --CarTick 20:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cartick. where I live in US there is a big stray deer problem which causes millions of dollars worth of losses every year by running in front of cars [11] and spreading Lyme disease by carrying Ixodes scapularis. the article could be moved to Stray animals in India easily and expanded. IMO opinion primary focus of the article should be on stray dogs which are much more dangerous and spread rabies--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Fauna of India. There's not enough information here for a separate article, but it would fit nicely into an overview of animal life in India. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cattle in religion#Modern_day. To quote Uncle Dick, there's "not enough information here for a separate article". Guoguo12--Talk--  00:42, 28 August 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) 03:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse Order[edit]

Inverse Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND. Provided refs are just reviews of their CD, no actual articles ABOUT the band. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had originally speedy deleted this article, and it was recreated. The arguments used on my talk page for keeping the article (and my responses to them) are shown below:
  1. Has won or been nominated for a major music award (major in New Zealand - Juice TV Music Video award not sure if this counts?)
     • I would not count this as a major music award. Juice TV is mainly received in the Auckland area - there were plans to "to get Juice TV broadcasting free-to-air on a UHF network that covered most metropolitan and many regional centres across New Zealand. ... The plan did not happen." (to quote from the Juice TV article). The major NZ music award which is internationally recognised are the New Zealand Music Awards
  2. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network in NZ- KiwiFM and The Rock FM
     • I could find no evidence (other than blogs, etc written by the band) that Kiwi FM or The Rock FM had the band in their national rotation.
  3. They have also charted in the top 40 of the New Zealand rock radio charts
     • This was the one which gave me slight pause! The official source of the NZ charts is the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. The cited source in the article is the RadioScope chart - but this chart only counts for 75% of the official figures (the remainder being from airplay) - and the single was at position 40 for two weeks on the RadioScope chart - they did not chart on the RIANZ official charts (see here).

Overall, I do not see that they meet WP:BAND, hence my delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJeems (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have responded there, and advise MrJeems to comment on this page rather than the talk page of the article itself -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radioscope

• I'm finding it hard to see how any band can prove they were playlisted on a radio station. Looking at a few other similar band pages none of them offer real references to this. The way I see it, the band ranking in the top 40 of the Radioscope Rock charts - a chart used to rank radio airplay - would imply that significant amounts of radio play were achieved? And this could only really be achieved through national radio play - as smaller stations don't have enough listeners to make much of a dent on the charts.
• Also, I'm still unsure as to what constitutes a relevant reference in terms of online articles. Would an article on the website of a national news provider count? Or an old article in a Local newspaper? It seems to me like there is plenty of stuff out there, its just a matter of presenting it in a way that Wikipedia accepts. Any help would be appreciated.

MrJeems - talk - contributions 15:40, 13 August 2010 (+12 GMT)

• Actually, you have it the wrong way round - the Radioscope Rock charts do not signify airplay, but purchases - the fact that they charted at number 40 for two weeks shows that they made enough sales; to get into the NZ official charts, you need to have the airplay as well, which there is no evidence of, as they did not make the official chart, only the Radioscope one.Oops, I got it the wrong way round! Also, if enough criteria are met, not all of them need to be proved - national playlisting can indeed be hard to prove (unless, for example, The New Zealand Herald had an article about them which included a mention along the lines of "... and their single xyz was featured on the national playlist for 3 weeks...").

• Correction - the Radioscope charts do indeed show that they got enough airplay - but they didn't chart because that only counts for 25% of the official chart rating - the remaining 75% is through sales. However, the criteria state Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network - my understanding of RadioScope is that they look at the airplay by the local as well as national stations - there are 25 nationals, about 100 locals (excluding Maori language stations) - As I stated above, I could find no evidence that the nationals had played them, and I think that it is possible to reach #40 by airplay on the locals only.

• The 3 News article looked promising, but I notice that the writer (in February this year) says they "are still relatively unknown. They’re in that all too familiar limbo, like so many other Kiwi bands and artists, just waiting for their big break." - this does not appear to be the wording about a band who meets the criteria for inclusion! Also, the fact that this is about a gig at a pub does not meet WP:BAND criteria 4: Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
• I must admit that the North Shore Times article reference is a surprise - the majority of their 75,000 household readership are in the 35-64 age range! However, that article appears to be about them winning a local competition, which I do not think will meet Wikipedia's criteria.

Overall, unless evidence can be produced that they meet WP:BAND's criteria for inclusion (and at the moment, I personally do not feel that they meet that standard) then I do not feel that the band is sufficiently notable to warrant an entry on Wikipedia at this time. I will leave more detailed notes on your talk page -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch·comms 18:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteSeems no more notable than any number of other similar acts. Inclusion seems more like an attempt to gain/promote notability than record pre-existing notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:41, 22 August 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) 03:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Halsey[edit]

Kurt Halsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The article appears to fail WP:BIO. There has been previous discussion on the article talk page, two years ago, about the lack of notability evidence coming to little conclusion. His work has been published, but there is little mention in Google Books and no mention at all in Google News. There are some fansite discussions and the odd website interview but nothing showing significant impact, international recognition or significant awards. Fæ (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As borderline BLP. None of the sources used in the article seem particularly reliable to me. Steven Walling 00:03, 21 August 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 all. —fetch·comms 00:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions[edit]

Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Also nominating:

• Alaska Baptist Convention
• Arizona Southern Baptist Convention
• Arkansas Baptist State Convention
• California Southern Baptist Convention
• Colorado Baptist General Convention
• The Dakota Baptist Convention

All appear to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - as all per Notability for Non-commercial organizations Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. - no indication these are. Codf1977 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • … apart from the several encyclopaedias that they already have individual articles in, of course. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The Alabama Baptist Convention is encyclopaedic, in the quite literal sense. My educated guess, without checking, is that the others will be, too. I strongly advise checking. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no references in the general media that establishes notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Weak Keep The newly added references establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, many of them were already there when I made the edit above. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Alabama article, at least, which has been reborn as a substantive and well-cited historical article through the redemptive efforts of Uncle G. I agree with Uncle G that these topics are inherently encyclopedic, and will be interested in hearing Uncle G's opinion about whether the other articles can be similarly saved.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
    • Arkansas Baptist State Convention — almost certainly. See its further reading section.
    • The Dakota Baptist Convention — This appears to be a 7-year-old organization. The Sioux Falls South Dakota Baptist Convention that I keep finding instead, in contrast, was founded on 1881-07-01. I've not pulled this one apart fully, yet.
    • Arizona Southern Baptist Convention — I've not looked too hard here, either. But it's already in one encyclopaedia. Of course, the Baptist Foundation of Arizona is a related topic.

      I've looked harder now (00:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)), and the article is now a sourced stub with some history of the original formation of the organization, and some sources in the further reading section that could be used for further expansion.

    • Colorado Baptist General Convention — As with Arizona, this is already in one encyclopaedia. And the article is now a sourced stub with sources for further expansion in both the references and further reading sections.
    • Alaska Baptist Convention — Now (03:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)) the same as for Arizona and Colorado.
  • I've not investigated the others. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I draw your attention to this edit whilst we are here. You have to laugh. Goodness forfend that readers wanting to find History of Baptists in Alabama should be able to do so! ☺ I dread to think what will happen when someone notices that we probably have the sources out of this little exercise to start on History of Baptists in Arkansas, too. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. I'm sure this stuff is notable. Probably crazy notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. As the state-level organisations (or meetings of them) for a very major American denomination, I would have thought these were notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Agree with Peterkingiron and others arguing for this above. The Alabama State Convention is especially notable, it appears, because of its position on slavery before the American Civil War, which contributed to the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention and splitting apart of the national one - definitely significant and part of sectional tensions. Article needs better explanation and updating with newer sources, as it is overly reliant on the 1881 Baptist Encyclopedia, but clearly there are valid, third-party, academic sources whose authors have studied the denomination, role of religion in southern states, and the way it developed in different states. Given the way demographics have been changing across the SW and West, changes in denominational membership and the state conventions are important today as well.Parkwells (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your contributions. I also created pages for the following state conventions which have been deleted. If you could advocate their restoration I would be very pleased.

State Convention of Baptist in Indiana Kansas-Nebraska Convention of Southern Baptists Baptist State Convention of Michigan Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist Convention Mississippi Baptist Convention Board Nevada Baptist Convention Baptist Convention of New England Baptist Convention of New Mexico Baptist State Convention of North Carolina Northwest Baptist Convention Baptist Convention of Pennsylvania/South Jersey Toverton28 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)toverton28[reply]

• Some of the nominated articles should be kept, some deleted, a follows:

• Keep Alabama Baptist Convention, Arkansas Baptist State Convention, Arizona Southern Baptist Convention (although I note that the latter has no references, but some "further reading")
• Delete Alaska Baptist Convention, Colorado Baptist General Convention, The Dakota Baptist Convention, California Southern Baptist Convention (with the latter, although it is referenced, all the references are either from the organisation themselves (including the University which they run) or from sources which may not meet WP:RS/WP:IS)

• Following the sourcing mentioned below, and the work on the various articles, I am happy to change my recommendation to Keep all on the above list -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other articles which Toverton28 has asked to be restored, without looking at them, I would suggest that if they are referenced, they should be restored otherwise not.

Comment May I remind participants at this AfD that such organisations would not be inherently notable (unless someone can find a policy or guideline that says so) - to show notability, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable independent sources; also even if some of the conventions are notable, that does not mean that all of them are. The articles I have suggested keeping have such references - excellent work, by the way, Uncle G! You'll notice that I extended this to include "Further reading" - I would hope that someone would be able to get a copy of this reading and add inline citations in the article! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A quick google books search shows that the Alaska Baptist Convention is covered in detail in Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists vol 3 on pages 1559-1561, here is the Google Books link. Colorado Baptist General Convention is covered on page 188 of The Southern Baptist Convention: a sesquicentennial history, here is the Google books link. The Dakota Baptist Convention received recent news coverage (albeit sectarian coverage here and here and at least mentions in AP coverage here. California Southern Baptist Convention is covered is many articles indexed by Google news archive, including [12], [13] (need subscripton to get whole article from Fresno Bee, but summary is pretty clear), [14] (same), [15], and [16]. This leads me to believe that these two three four, in addition to the others Phantomsteve voted keep on, have significant coverage. Novaseminary (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. These are independent organizations that are members of a national association, not branches of the national organization. There seems to be plenty to be said about each: history, membership, churches, schools, missions, controversies etc. Some of the articles establish notability by citing sources, the others could easily be expanded and improved to show notability. E.g. this book search for the Arizona organization. We should not delete articles on subjects that are clearly notable just because the article does not yet include citations to prove notability. Better to add content and citations than nominate for deletion. WP:BEFORE. Articles for other state Baptist conventions, if notable (most probably are), could be created or restored, but should have significant content and citations so they are of value to the reader. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The "individual chapters/divisions..." language of WP:CLUB does not apply as these are affiliated, but distinct/independent groups from each other and the Southern Baptist Convention. As I noted above in response to Phantomsteve, it seems each, or at least most, on their own meets WP:ORG. Novaseminary (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just for fun, does anyone want to nominate the Alabama article for DYK? The tagline could be something to do with the number of members it represents (1.3 million). I think it squeaks under the line for date and % expansion. A childish suggestion, and as a serious editor I am certainly not recommending this action. The article is still very much in flux with a lot to be added, and is decidedly short on pictures. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not beyond the bounds of possibility, and not as silly as you might think. Diogenes and Alexander was listed for DYK whilst at AFD. They held off the DYK discussion until the closure of the AFD discussion. On the other hand, that was me as well, it was only a fortnight ago, and we've already got two other DYK listings out of this discussion for history of Baptists in Alabama and history of Baptists in Kentucky, both of which are also me. So I'm not going to suggest the Alabama article. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't either. I was being a bit sarcastic and apologize for that. But given the size and history of the organization, the amount already in the article and the amount of content that could be added, the nomination does seem sort of daft. Still, it has stimulated improvement, which is good. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:38, 27 August 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) 03:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium (Akon album)[edit]

Stadium (Akon album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER there is not yet enough confirmed info on this album. This could have been a simple PROD but based on experience with "upcoming" albums in this genre, I bet it would be removed without comment. Also, the fact that the singles already have lives of their own is irrelevant when the album is not yet a reality. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Stadium Music (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because it appears to refer to the same album under a different title. Astronaut (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, I didn't notice that near-duplicate article. The fact that they both exist might just indicate that any information about the new Akon album is unclear and unconfirmed. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: There is not enough verified information about this unreleased album to justfy a stand-alone article. This should probably be covered at the artist's article until the title, track listing and release date have all been confirmed. See also Stadium Music (album). The two references at that article have different names for the artist's upcoming album: this MTV story from March 19 says it's titled Stadium, but this Singersroom story from March 20 says it's titled "Stadium Music". Cliff smith ^talk 19:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Way too soon for an album not released for many months. Also added Stadium Music (album) to this discussion. Astronaut (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Akon himself announced release of this album in the end of 2010. --Saki ^talk 08:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline on music notability says: "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." Cliff smith ^talk 18:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them both... I've removed a lot of unsourced info from at least one of these articles, but there really is not much left to warrant an article. - eo (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as article fails notability criteria for albums. TenPoundHammer's Law can be applied too, as there is not a single reliable source for the title, the tracklist and the release date. (Not against userfying before delete.) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:57, 25 August 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) 03:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pimcore[edit]

Pimcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Promotion for non-notable software product; article written by its developer. I have not found coverage beyond the brief mention here. Haakon (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Could this be speedied? Doesn't assert any notability or give any references that aren't its own website. Chris (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It gives this, which is why I didn't nominate for speedy. Haakon (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. A brand new WP page for brand new software. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All the references are from Pimcore.org. No history or secondary sources which would place it above WP:ADVERT. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:53, 21 August 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 by FisherQueen (talk · contribs) at 13:33, 21 August 2010 per A7. Non-admin closure Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Guitar[edit]

Flaming Guitar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article about a web-published comic fails the WP:WEB guidelines for notability as well as the general guidance. Searching Google and GNews reveals nothing of significance. The comic appears fairly newly created so there may be mileage in an article if it wins some awards or gets published via a recognized notable publisher; however there seems little prospect of notability (in a Wikipedia sense) being addressed in reliable independent sources in the near future. PROD removed so raising for AFD. Fæ (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A7 No notability even asserted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Forget notability: this one runs into verifiability, the cornerstone of the project and one of the few Rules that define a good article instead of getting used as a club by deletion-happy (sorry, past trauma) being intended as a tool to help make good articles. V basically means that the word of an open wiki is not good for much. All articles have to be able to give a proper answer to the question "Says who?" This is no minor issue. Check out the scam attempts after the Boxing Day tsunami, or better yet, don't. Flaming Guitar doesn't seem to have any third-party sources backing it up, nor can we expect it to acquire any in a reasonable length of time. If the authors or other people are interested in acquiring a copy of the article after the AfD closes, feel free to ask me or another admin. --Kizor 19:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete non-notable web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as non-notable web content. It will take a lot more than a discussion on a web forum before this can be remotely considered for notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:03, 21 August 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 (CSD A7) by RHaworth. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trackula[edit]

Trackula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Deleted and then restored after I read the talk-- brought assertion of significance over to article. Nothing at BillBoard or Allmusic, however, leads me to believe meets WP:BAND. Not able to locate significant coverage in reliable, 3rd party sources to show does meet WP:Band. Dlohcierekim 15:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A7 Opening for notable act ≠ notable per WP:MUSIC. It was also sourced to another WP article, which you can't do. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And 10 pound hammer hammers me with another A7! Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:45, 20 August 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. This is an unlikely redirect target so.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Association football (soccer) ball skills[edit]

Association football (soccer) ball skills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This page consists mainly of Youtube links and is otherwise redundant to Association football tactics and skills. I wouldn't mind a redirect but the current article is useless in encyclopedic terms. De728631 (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Not really an encyclopaedic topic, since Wikipedia is not a "How to" manual. – PeeJay 20:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not sure of the copyright of the videos linked so maybe the should be removed but it is informative/encyclopedic on skills used in football. Mo ainm~Talk 21:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This page is informative and useful and there is no overlap with the Association football tactics and skills. How is this list really different than something like Karate stances or List of Taekwondo techniques? The difference is they don't have external links to useful multi-media videos. Also this page has been up for less than a week, so please give it some time for the content to be enhanced as this is only a framework that has originally been set up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgates456 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there is the problem, Wikipedia is not supposed to provide external video content for every single section at all, it is an enclopedia that mainly provides informative text. As was said above, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual and does not rely on Youtube as that cannot be regarded as a reliable source. Not to mention possible copyright issues with those links. So if we remove them, there will be nothing left that is not already explained in Association football tactics and skills. And Karate stances as well as List of Taekwondo techniques have lists of references from reliable sources; and they are, as far as I am aware, the only articles dealing with these techniques while there's already another detailed article on football skills and techniques. Rather than starting a completely new page, the existing article should be worked upon. De728631 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • An unsourced article is not a reason to delete. Mo ainm~Talk 23:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • An article that is redundant to another one is a reason to delete. We don't need two pages on the same topic. And unsourced material may well be deleted as original research. De728631 (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where is the redundant article? If you read some the text referencing other people's names of where the moves came from, this is listed nowhere in the other article you mention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgates456 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopedic. - 4twenty42o (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it not encyclopedic? It explains types of ball skills used by football players and an encyclopedia is a comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of topics, if someone wants to know what a nutmeg is or a step over in relation to soccer they can find it here. Mo ainm~Talk 11:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is encyclopedic.. That mess of an "article" as stands is either a joke and needs to be deleted or needs to be cleverly merged into a soccer/football article. I personally think it should be deleted and be done with it. - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wondering how one is suppose to build an article?! As I said, this page has been created less than a week ago and I did it to try and create a framework with information to be added in later. Should there not be some reasonable time period... (in months I'd expect) for a page to get a reasonable amount of information?
• This page is already large enough as it is and I don't think should be merged into the 'Skills AND Tactics' page you're referencing. I originally wanted to split the page into a separate Tactics and Separate Skills, and this was a way to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgates456 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• So is the description of the Preki move a suitable reference? How is this different from Superman punch? Should we not instead tag the article 'Needs references'?--Bgates456 (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anything of note to the game of football is redundant (or at least, can extremely easily be made redundant) to Association football tactics and skills. Anything notable for being one individual's trademark belongs in that individual's article. Once you remove those, the list becomes extremely trivial. As an aside, if this somehow ends up as a "no consensus" close, please move this to its correct title at Association football ball skills. --WFC-- 07:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect duplicate of non-youtube based article. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 07:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Redundant article that is completely unsourced and bound to cause confusion with the similarly titled article. Merge any salvageable content to Association football tactics and skills. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:41, 27 August 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Obama first family vacations[edit]

List of Obama first family vacations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Questionable relevance. Nothing but an infodump of various trips that the Obamas took. Seems like an unnecessary list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment and !vote by blocked IP sockpuppet removed. )

• Delete- I think the best policy here to apply is WP:NOTNEWS. This is something that, while receiving coverage in the media, sure, just isn't encyclopedic. Its tabloidish stuff that nobody down the line is going care about. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seriously! Where do I start? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a news service. There is no notability to someone's family holiday, however notable that person may be and the whole thing is an unnecessary content fork which gives undue weight to a very minor aspect of the lives of people who are notable, but not for taking holidays. Each trip is probably worthy of a sentence at most in the articles on Barack and Michelle Obama. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Indiscriminate dump of non-notable information. List cruft. Obama and the first family are obviously notable but that doesn't make him King Midas, i.e. every single act he performs becomes gold and notable. Further, there's no indication that these excursions were significant within Obama's life or administration; one might argue for example that Theodore Roosevelt's travels were of significance since they were major news stories and in some ways influential on his life and career such many are still remembered in history books, but the same is not true of these. Indeed, most of this article's content wouldn't make the cut within the article about Obama himself. - OldManNeptune⚓ (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Given the controversy over the Obamas' vacations it's obviously notable. If not, the New York Times would never have reported on them. But futhermore, it's obviously notable by Wikipedia standards as well. If not, someone should hang an AfD tag on the Little White House article. --74.248.43.156 (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage in the NY Times is not de facto establishment of notability. If that were countless miniscule items of local interest would qualify for unwarranted articles on Wikipedia. For that matter, regarding presidents, not every press conference merits an article either, yet a great many of those make national papers. - OldManNeptune⚓ (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - POV trojan horse. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Obama family has been the target of alot of controversy over their vacations so because of so much media attention we should keep it. CJISBEAST (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What controversy would that be, exactly? I have not heard anything from a source I'd call reliable stating that there was anything controversial about this. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read the article before you have it deleted, you could learn something by reading it ... like what is in the very first reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the first paragraph that sounds like a right wing blog entry, not an encyclopedia? Umbralcorax (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except it doesn't come from a blog, its from The Daily Telegraph. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.. I read the article. It's not helping to make the case for its notability, including such things as "After a week of vacation at the White House, Obama speaks at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia to promote education." This is considered vacation exactly how? --Crunch (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That claim about some kind of White House "vacation" was simply not present - nowhere to be seen - in the ref that was given to support it. The ref only talked about his address to school kids. I've just deleted the claim from the article.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:IINFO. A listing of vacations taken by the Obamas is neither encyclopedic nor notable. Gobonobo ^{T C} 19:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The bottom line is that we don't need a list of somebody's vacations clogging up Wikipedia, such information is clearly trivial and does not conform to the notability standards we employ here. Any non-trivial criticisms of Obama's Vacations should be added to the pre-existing article; Public image of Barack Obama. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:IINFO. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INFO, WP:LIST, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:LISTCRUFT. Whose Your Guy (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only reason cited for keeping is that "people" (ie right wing birthers) have found the vacations "controversial" - POV Fork. Active Banana ( bananaphone 02:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparent double–voting via socks. There's strong evidence that the two "keep" !votes that were entered by IPs above were made by the same person, and that they're both socks of a now-blocked editor. Please see this ANI post for details of what looks to me like block evasion and vote stacking, via socking. None of the named accounts here appears to be implicated, btw.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see it violating any Wikipedia rule, and the President's vacations have been controversial in these days of partisan news programs. The Wikipedia rule is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This American Life just had a story on FDR and Warm Springs vacations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The FDR Warm Spring vacations were a little different because 1) He set up a second residence there, known as the Little White House. 2) He founded a hospital for polio patients there. 3) He died there. It's a lot different than the Obama's spending a week on Martha's Vineyard one summer and a weekend at the Grand Canyon another. Also Wikipedia is not This American Life.--Crunch (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. On several grounds: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LIST for starters. Claims that the Obama vacations have been controversial are not particularly true, any more than any detail of his personal life (or any other presidential vacation) is under the microscope. What's next "List of brands of clothes worn by Michelle Obama" or "List of famous people who have visited Obama White House"? If the vacations are "in the news" it's only because they are on vacation right now, which speaks to WP:RECENT. --Crunch (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is called reduction to absurdity. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nonsense. An attempt to create a controversy where there is none. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No other such articles exist for any other President, or "first family", or any other person at all. This is plainly a WP:COATRACK for a subtextual political message. SteveStrummer (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The first ref in the article says, of Obama, "Although he appears to take more holidays than his predecessors, they have usually been very short. His five this year will total just 20 days - he did not accompany his wife and youngest daughter to Marbella, Spain. As well as Florida, Maine, and an 11-day stay in Hawaii over Christmas and New Year, he and his wife spent two days in Asheville, North Carolina in April. " Contrast this to another passage in the same ref which says, "President George W. Bush spent a total of 879 days on holiday in his eight years in office, according to Mark Knoller of CBS, the unofficial statistician of the presidency." Will our friends on the "keep" side of the aisle please do the math and, with the result in hand, please reconsider whether their motives are fully representative of "neutral point of view"? With every assumption of good faith, it still just looks like a non-starter to me. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your argument, I can't comment unless I understand what it is. Your just reciting a quote that I added to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. George W. Bush took 110 vacation days per year, on average. This article claims Obama took somewhere around 20 vacation days last year - nevermind that, according to the first ref, some of those were interrupted when various crises arose. The President has taken 20 days so far this year which, projected to a full year, works out to around 30 days per year. Let's average the two years, and agree we're still going to count a planned vacation day that gets interrupted by a crisis as a full vacation day: this means President Obama takes around 25 vacation days per year, on average. You can invoke all the Wikipedia policy pages you like to try to whip up the idea that Obama's vacations are somehow excessive and thus deserve their own article, but I don't honestly see how common sense can allow you to make such an argument. I'd have greater confidence in the "neutral point of view" of contributors to this article if they'd been half as eager to create a corresponding article about Bush, who took more than four times as many vacation days. And, no, I don't think such an article would belong in the encyclopedia, either. Anyway, I'm not going to debate the point with you further: the objective data just makes the whole premise this article is based on way too far-fetched for me to take seriously.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tracking someone's vacations, no matter who that person is, is hardly an encyclopedic subject. Any controversy concerning the vacations could be mentioned in the main article, which is another thing entirely than listing everywhere he -- and the family -- goes. /Julle (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The tile is contradictious, how can we have a list of something, what happens only once. There is only one "first family vacation". Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are parsing the title incorrectly. Try again. It is not "first family-vacation" it is "first-family vacation". Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep of course. The objections above are bizarre. Indiscriminate collection of information? Let's delete all lists then. Lack of notability? Tell that to the media that is devoting so much time to reports on the firsst family's vacations. Bush did it too? OK, somebody should make a list for Bush. --Neil Brown (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Can we maybe not resort to "right wing bias" arguments in this discussion? I'm a conservative and I voted delete on neutral grounds, i.e. that just because a notable person does something that briefly makes the news does not make that event notable in its own right. It does not help a deletion debate to accuse a group, who may actually be participating in the debate in good faith, of some wrongdoing. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 19:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I could really go either way on this one. I would say merge, but I'm not sure where to put it. All I know is that the status quo isn't acceptable. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actual controversy of Obama taking all these vacations can easily be put into Public image of Barack Obama, but the trivial list of where he went is not needed. My thoughts; the topic is notable but the list of vacation spots is not. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as severe POV nonsense, and an obvious attempt to portray a political opponent as AWOL, despite the point made above that Bush took four times as many days of vacation per year. While it is somewhat interesting to see how many ways made-up attacks can be directed at Obama, Wikipedia should not amplify the attempts. If this topic is of any verifiable significance, it can be covered in one sentence in another article. Also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article addresses a topic covered on the front page of The New York Times this weekend see this link, and has been a regular subject of reportage in major newspapers. The article as it exists provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Wikipedia is not the news. This also smacks of recentism. –MuZemike 05:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if any of these vacations are of sufficient "lasting importance"/notability, they would be mentioned in the relevant main articles. Clearly, not every vacation that the Obamas have taken is notable and a list of them is not appropriate. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Is it WP:SNOWing yet? Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepable - there's no point anybody sticking their heads in the sand, this topic has been extensively covered in the media. Not just the individual instances but the sum total. Some of the objections here are it's inherently POV - well maybe, there's been something of a ding-dong about this and Republicans have been keen to highlight Obama's holidays, so having an article on this is doing them a favor. Having said that, I'm satisfied we could and possibly should produce articles for the Bushes and Bill Clinton too. It smells of recentism otherwise, but sources exist for those other potential articles too. It's OR/synthesis of a topic; the topic as a whole is not notable because only individual holidays get press coverage and they are clearly non-notable single events - I can see the point but there's too much written and argued about the holidaying habits of Obama for this to convince me. The fact the sum total of holidays is being discussed is relevant - these are not just random press snippets for individual holidays being collated. It's trivial. Not sure. Obama's holiday decisions are made after careful consideration including political aspects. Sometimes it shines a light on his political priorities or needs at the time (e.g. the short trip to the Gulf; this article really should include more sourced critical commentary about why that decision was made and the public reaction to it - plenty of sources do exist for this). An analagous situation is the British left-wing politician Blair, who famously holidayed with the controversial conservative Italian premier Berlusconi (the surprisingly warm chemistry between the men was hotly debated in the media) and the fact that he stayed in Egypt is also informative (it says something about Egyptian-Western relations - by contrast, Blair could hardly holiday in Iran, and while that seems obvious or trivial now, an observer from 10 years in the future might find it quite insightful - and it says something about Blair too, who became a Middle East peace envoy and established a foundation for Christian-Islam discourse). A decent article could be put together about Blair's vacation activity. So there's no reason to think that the sheer existence of an Obama article is inherently trivial or political. Is this article currently in a rubbish state? Yes, but it's not spewing out vile levels of bias, nor is it breaching BLP, and it has some sources - to which many more could be added, particularly with a view to critical commentary (not criticism! There are sources about why Obama chose some of these places, and the political effectiveness or impact, and that information should be integrated). Why not give this page a chance, see if it can be brought up to scratch, and whether corresponding articles can be produced for similar politicians? TheGrappler (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles you suggest (vacations by other politicians) do not exist because they are inherently non-encyclopedic. A lot of material is published by reliable sources, but we do not pick out all the bits that we think are interesting and put them in an article because the topic is not notable. Sure, there is current interest in Obama's vacations because his opponents make up a new attack as often as they can, however Wikipedia should not be used as part of that process. Come back in six months and recreate the article (see the deleting admin for a userfied copy) and include some reliable sources that have an analysis of the mid/long term significance. Right now, there is nothing but an echo chamber. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What would it take for them to be encyclopedic? They don't seem to be either inherently includable, or inherently non-includable. It's a question of sources. I am not talking about synthetically combinging tidbits of information into an article - a press-cuttings compilation doesn't deserve an article - but the fact is there has been extensive analysis both for the vacation habits - taken as a whole, not just one event at a time - for GW Bush and Obama, and Blair too. "Because his opponents make up a new attack as often as they can" is actually relevant in all three cases (vacations are often used as a big stick to beat politicians with, this is certainly not an anti-Obama thing), but there have also been defenders in all three cases, and overall analysis too. TheGrappler (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as recentism without a shelf-life. About as notable as List of Obama basketball games or List of people Gerald Ford hit with a golf ball. These all made it into the news, but that doesn't make them notable encyclopedia articles. First Light (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a difference here in that I can't recall seeing holistic commentary on "Obama's basketball games taken as a whole", or "Gerald Ford's golf ball people-hitting incidents taken as a whole". Whereas the Obama vacations issue has been address in third party sources holistically. I disagree to some extent with recentism - there would be sufficient third party sources to create similar articles for quite a lot of leading politicians, dating some time back. TheGrappler (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see "significant coverage" of the vacations "as a whole" - only individual coverage and quotes from opposing politicians who say that the president shouldn't be taking all of those vacations. This type of thing happened even more during the Bush era, and probably during every presidency. It's just politics, and isn't notable in and of itself. First Light (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Merge the summary paragraph to Public image of Barack Obama. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why would an encyclopedia have a list like this? Mention of the controversy surrounding whatever trips he has taken may make for a good section about his presidency, but a trip-by-trip list as its own article? No. HubcapD (talk) 21:55, 27 August 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) 03:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Murphy[edit]

James D. Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article is about an author of an organisational process improvement model called "flawless execution". I can find press releases and mentions, but not substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertising. Afterburner is known worldwide for its consulting work around its proprietary organizational development and continuous process improvement model called Flawless Execution. Carrite (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The two books clearly exist and there is a small biog on the HarperCollins website although it is arguable whether this is enough to establish notability. I've only found one minor review for one of the books but, on the other hand, I've seen worse cases which have been kept. The article could be stubified to get rid of the advertising material. If a decision is made to delete this one, I suggest we look at the companion article Flawless Execution which seems to have even less to recommend it.--Plad2 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 August 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) 03:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Friends[edit]

Fellowship of Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article contains nothing resembling a reliable source regarding this organization. Prior nomination seems to have been a misfire. bd2412 T 15:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Of note, the most extensive third party discussion I can find on this organization is several pages in a book titled Deadly Cults: The Crimes of True Believers. bd2412 T 15:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I agree that the present article contains no information from reliably independent sources. Despite the considerable efforts of multiple contributors, the resulting seemingly-neutral language appears, from what I can glean about the subject, to be quite misleading about the nature of the organization. It may be possible to remedy errors of omission using information such as that in the book BD2412 cites (which, according to the Wikipedia article, Deadly Cults, appears to be regarded as a reliable one) but, failing that, I believe the present article is worse than nothing because it contains no indication of significant information that might be considered what actually makes the group notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've looked, and don't see anything about what these folks actually believe in other than on their websites. There is anecdotal material available in that book, but just that type of info would not provide a full picture, and may violate BLP, so, with only a primary source, BD2412 is probably correct. Because many deleted articles are found to contain defamatory or other legally suspect material, deleted pages are not permitted to be generally viewed. However, they remain in the database (at least temporarily) and are accessible to administrators, along with their edit history unless they are oversighted. Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review (or simply ask an administrator to supply a copy of the page). Note that these requests are likely to be denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.93.50 (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article suffers from several issues: reliable sources, BLP, NPOV and probably notability. I've been an active editor and would have to agree that the main source about them is their own website, or the Deadly Cults book, which got the article listed in the BLP noticeboard. While not a cause for deletion, the edit warring, 3RR violations multiple page protections and mediation for an article with questionable notability could be considered. --Moon Rising (talk) 20:15, 25 August 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) 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sledger (Software)[edit]

Sledger (Software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No notability for this product given to warrant it having it's own page. Drivenapart (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE; I can't find any independent secondary sources, no significant coverage. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 15:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) –MuZemike 04:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I also could not find any coverage in any reliable sources; just some forum postings here and there, but nothing past that. –MuZemike 04:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons listed above. Also a WP:COI issue with the original author, as seen here. --Teancum (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom and above, obvious ad. Dewritech (talk) 18:45, 23 August 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. —fetch·comms 00:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelief[edit]

Unbelief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

As far as I can tell the central thesis of this article is bunk (that there is an school of 'unbelief' that has developed since the 18th century) and it's all original research on that basis. Would be more suited to a blog. We are not a publisher of original research. Cameron Scott (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, it's an essay with no sources. Nuujinn (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have stated my position on the talk page of the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.
• Comment. The subject would appear to be covered already at agnosticism and freethought. These may be redirect or disambiguation targets. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In earlier, deleted, edits, this used to be just a plain redirect to belief … when it wasn't an article about a band, that is. Uncle G (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete current content and redirect title to Belief. bd2412 T 15:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unwikified and unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unambiguous WP:OR in the form of someone's opinions. No prospect of anything verifiable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but restart. A lot of the material is actually covered in scepticism. Most of the article could be taken to wikiversity and page actually about unbelief developed. The admitted serious flaws in the current page should not restrict the development of a more suitable page on the topic.Harrypotter (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, Harrypotter, can you point to any reliable sources provided significant coverage of "unbelief" as a distinct concept?
  • • Answer, please check other wikipedia language pages (I've just added some more!)Harrypotter (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • ?????????? Wikipedia (in any language) is a not reliable source. moreover, Sourcing requirements between language versions of wikipedia differ, so the fact that other languages have an article provides no support for the idea we have one. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Moreover, the ones I've checked are equally unsourced and many are tagged as original research. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am afraid I disagree with you - the fact that other languages have an article provides some support for the idea we have one, but maybe not sufficient. Looking through the pages, aside from the Russian page, please could you detail which ones are tagged as original research. Perhaps more pertinent is that some of them link to infidel on the English wikipedia, although there is also a page on kafir and kofer which would also be relevant. perhaps a solution might be having a redirect to one of these?Harrypotter (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can say with 100% certainty that the Swedish, Danish, Spanish and Dutch iw-links you added are corresponding articles on the term "infidel", they have nothing to do with "unbelief". Therefore I have a suspicion that the rest of the languages in the group of iws you added (which by the way corresponds to the already existing iws to the infidel article) may very well be equivalents to "infidel" as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I disagree with you - that's nice but wikipedia is not a reliable source, I'm not sure what needs to be said? The bottom line is that the article *we* have is unsourced, and without evidence that it *can* be sourced, it will be deleted. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please could you at least take the trouble to explain why you reject the suggestion of a redirect page. I would be very grateful if you could do this. I feel that in the interests of civility this would be a big step forward. Thanking you very much in advacnce.Harrypotter (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Harrypotter, did Cameron reject the suggestion of a redirect? What I believe he is getting at is that unless significant coverage in reliable sources according to the policy at WP:RS can be demonstrated, this article will be deleted. Nuujinn (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - original research without the virtue of references to support it--Utinomen (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the word is actually used above all in chatolic countries but spreading somewhere else in last decades. I think wrong whether delete or include in other articles incoherent with its meaning. The specification is always an encyclopedic worth and not a disvalue. --Barrrower (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove it. Cite sources. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia has articles about topics, not an article for every word in the language. This article is unreferenced and not about any topic in any way distinct from articles such as skepticism. Where it rambles on about religious unbelief, its topic is covered by other articles such as agnosticism and atheism--JimWae (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See please: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19850612en.html Candice--217.202.248.0 (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is correct and recently improved in its incipit. It is perfectly in accordance with wikipedia's criteria. --Iserden (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • this article started out as a barely intelligible personal essay. It is still completely unsourced & unfocussed. I do not see a single improvement other than it is slightly more readable. The lede is unstable because nobody can figure out what the topic is. Not every word in a dictionary merits an encyclopedia article.--JimWae (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree. Unbelief is not a word but a "category" born some decades ago that concerns the contemporary expression mainly used to indicate the refusal of religious belief. I discovered that in Italy exists a review entitled NONCREDO (I unbelieve)[17]. If we follow your point of view, I'm afraid, wikipedia should became only copy and repetition of old encyclopedias. The value of it, on the contrary, is to be a "contemporary" encyclopedia, better of the paper ones because more complete and rich. --Iserden (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No encyclopedia, old or new, print or digital, has an article for every word in the language. That is what dictionaries are for. This article has no sources and no topic to focus on -- other than what is already covered in other sourced articles. The 1985 papal document never defines "unbelief" nor does it ever distinguishes unbelief from atheism in any way. I note that the 2 votes below are by editors with less than 80 edits each, and in the case of one editor at least are mostly just formatting, unsourced opinions stated in poor English, and/or edits to See also sections which often were just links to this article. @Iserden: As the creator of this article, it is understandable that you would defend it. However, the problems it has are not being addressed - neither with edits nor with arguments here. Does unbelief include both disbelief and nonbelief (neither of which have articles)? Does it require some object (such as a deity, a moral code, or a religion?), or is it generalized skepticism and uncertainty? If it does require an object, there already are articles for atheism, agnosticism, nontheism and irreligion. Additionally, roughly 80% of the sentences still have major syntactic flaws - like they were written by someone without a grasp of the English language. --JimWae (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*keep. I had some doubt because the article is a little pletoric and confused in some its parts. Now I decided to maintain, but it is to be improved. --Baboshed (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC) *Keep. --Londers (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Could you elaborate why you want to keep this article? --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also Londers and Baboshed exhibit remarkably similar editing tendencies. They both have few edits to a handful of religion/psychology-type articles, they both stopped editing early March of this year only to activate briefly within the span of 4 hours to vote in this AFD. I know we have to AGF, but there is also WP:QUACK. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I had noticed the similarities in style myself. Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as personal essay and original research, without any mainstream academic sources that demonstrate a connection between 'unbelief' and the content in the article. First Light (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I should prefer the initial definition of 217.202 but the article is however good and unbelief is an important concept both philosophically and religiously. Frankly, I don't understand certain will to delete cultural article which make wikipedia better and more complete. --3manol (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something odd here, another editor with the same writing style who has returned simply to vote in this AFD. Same handful of edits in similar areas. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two above, Londers and Baboshed, have been confirmed investigated as socks of the article's creator: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iserden. 3manol looks to be part of the same flock. Barrrower also has been confirmed checkusered. "Possible" but non confirmed, though all are from the same city and the first four have been blocked. 4-5 Keeps all from one user.... First Light (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencyclopaedic original research. Would need a complete rewrite with reliable sources to remain viable. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:09, 27 August 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) 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ward (Chapel Hill)[edit]

Jim Ward (Chapel Hill) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This town councillor fails WP:POLITICIAN as he is only a local official. The question is whether or not he meets the general notability guidelines. I don't think that he does because although there are lots of mentions of his name in news sources, I can't find any significant coverage of him in independent reliable secondary sources. If that can be found, I would be happy to keep this article, but I don't think it's there. BelovedFreak 12:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 12:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 12:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as the person does not seem to be notable in any case out side of a local level. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 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. sourcing has not been demonstrated and the new material has been reviewed and found wanting Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flux2D/3D[edit]

Flux2D/3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

IP Contested PROD - Software with no indication of notability. Codf1977 (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 12:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Primary sources and sources that simply state Flux is the software used by the researchers. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. There needs to be a Wiki out there for software products, doesn't there? Carrite (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Software is very well-known and used widely by engineers. Article is very informative and references are good Terveetkadet (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Terveetkadet. Blanchardb's comment is incongruous (IMO). The fact that the software is used in preparing so many scholarly articles demonstrates its notability. Unless Blanchardb is an expert in the subject field, I suggest deferring to the opinion of the researchers using the software. — HowardBGolden (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Please have a look at the new references and links 3Dsoftware (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• General reflexions
  

> When i was young and we were still working with papers, we used to have an Encyclopædia Universalis at our library at school (more or less the same as the Encyclopædia Britannica). What is Universalis if some appears and some not? Wikipedia in english has the difference to be the common Enclyclopedia space worldwide (compare to Wikipedia in German, Spanish, Danish or French, etc addressing to a part of the community only) not only the one for north American people. One could notice that Wikipedia currently rather mention American software. Is it fair? Does it mean that we all need to work with the same tools? (of course we could think about famous work office suite...).
Of course, in my opinion, this 'Universalis' questions also applies for history facts, actors, philosophy, etc.
> About the comment that the software is used by searcher (which are only about 20% of the users in total), I was wondering:
- Does researchers works has to be hidden? Isn’t it part of the scientist community knowledge? Isn’t part of the of the knowledge to share on Wikipedia?
- Wikipedia prefers to link to .org web sites… which mean we’ll specially link to research works and publications. Otherwise information may not be trivial if linking to industrial users?
- In general, electrical devices optimisation (= energy saving) is an interesting debate and people may be concern with such topics and tools.
=> Shall i rather suppress those links to searchers work (I see some other simulation tools only mention 1 or 2 reference, which could limit verifiable and non-trivial information level).
> About the « as advertising » mention, i’m a bit surprise when i see some other sotware articles (sofware or company names). Are they advertisement? (if yes this would not be fair). Have they all reliable and verifiable and non-trivial references? What do they describe: technical features? History ? Functions? Group organisation? Applications? (which may be a good link to many applications in Wikipedia).
What is advertisement and what is not? What is useful to show in the Encyclopedia for the reader? 3Dsoftware (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Software appears to be the subject of multiple legitimate academic studies. Article is informative and not too spammy. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG, it is not the subject of any of the references, it is merely mentioned in some of them. To quote "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail." None of these sources address the software directly, they mention it was used in whatever piece of research they are actually discussing. This source doesn't even mention it... I'd put strong, but I think it unnecessary. Bigger digger (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Bigger digger (talk), I suggest you look at the G2ELAB website again. Search for "Flux". Here is a quote from it, "Flux is a research and commercial software dedicated to modeling of electrical devices. It is the result of a 25 years collaboration between the team and the CEDRAT compagny. Based on finite elements method, it is widely used all over the world, in many universities and compagnies." (In this quote, "the team" is G2ELAB.) I hope this helps you reconsider your (unnecessary to use strong) delete. — HowardBGolden (talk) 01:54, 28 August 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.