< 26 December	28 December >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Therapy for Metrophobia[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking GHit and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominator says, this film doesn't stack up well against the film notability guidelines. The closest it comes is that the article claims that it is a unique and significant accomplishment as a solo film, which, if true, would qualify it under "Other evidence" point 1. However, a.) I suspect it is neither as unique or significant an accomplishment as the article author believes, and b.) if it was, we would need reliable sourcing about its uniqueness and significance, which would probably fulfill some of the other guidelines anyway. gnfnrf (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NotJustYet. While the film appears completed, it is not yet released, nor does it have any coverage. Maybe in a few months... but now? Nope. . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I would like to thank the users above for their sincere efforts to keep wikipedia's integrity according to its policy. Since I am the writer of the page in discussion, I would be the least qualified to evaluate the page's worthiness. But I promise you this-- as of today, I will stop all my effort to keep the page alive. I you believe the article is not worth a space in wikipedia, go ahead and delete it. I know nothing about what will happen in the future, but if the movie aforementioned should become famous one day, this discussion will make an interesting anecdote worthy of mentioning. --Huhnkie Lee
- The issue is that the film is only now in the festival circuit and is currently lacking independent coverage. You might consider requesting the article be worked on in a userspace such as User:Huhnkie/A Therapy for Metrophobia, but as you appear to be the film's creator, and while I do understand that wearing the many hats of production can be a difficult task, Wikipedia has concerns with any appearance of self-promotion. Please read the page at WP:COI, and know that while not absolutely disallowed (as even founder Jimbo Wales has been known to edit the article about himself), wrting about oneself or one's projects is strongly discouraged. If or when the film gets news coverage, or wins awards, it might be welcomed back with open arms. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Certainly fails the GNG. With all due respect to Mr. Lee, "when the subject becomes famous" crosses our path at AfD several times a week. In the overwhelming number of cases, it never does. Ravenswing 22:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of any third-party coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

360 Creative, Inc.[edit]

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

Article lacks sources, but was likely on Wikipedia too long for a CSD which has now replaced by an AFD. mechamind 9 0 23:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
- has been helping large international brands reach customers and improve their brand image.....
- Specializing in advertising, marketing, graphic design, branding, and event management through a devoted group of marketing and creative professionals committed to charting the boundaries of interactivity.
- We strive for innovation and creativity in all that we do.
- ....satisfies the needs of businesses and delivers the necessary technology to meet their objectives and maintains a level of Customer Satisfaction that has never been experienced before.

- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. bobrayner (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks sources or any indication of coverage in Google News/Books. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carlson Gymnasium[edit]

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

Appears to be a rather ordinary building on a college campus. No indication of notability. All sources are primary. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^converse 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CU Boulder article, unless historicity can be found.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. It does not appear to be a USA equivalent of a listed building, and as such has no particular notability. --Kudpung (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given by Snottywong. I don't think it would be good to merge this content, because that would give this building undue weight within the CU Boulder article. I don't think that the Carlson Gymnasium has the significance of the other buildings currently listed. If the Carlson Gymnasium were added, wouldn't most academic buildings need to be added for balance? Wouldn't that give undue weight to the campus section of the CU Boulder article? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or bare redirect to University of Colorado at Boulder. Lacking third-party sourcing, merging of this material is WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Gregović[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable person. The original creator account is called "dgregovi" even, so it looks like pure, unadulterated vanity :) Later a new account "Drexon5" removed the autobiography tag and made some other changes, but nothing else. If I could be bothered, I'd have someone determine if it's a sockpuppet... but it's probably just a waste of time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A7. No substantive edits in over a year. THF (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could even be speedy. Not notable, and - on top of that - it's a long-time unreferenced BLP. GregorB (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Found this trivial mention (in Croatian) that shows that he is an attorney but does nothing else to confer notabilty. I have no problem with the piece being in Croatian, just that it is a trivial mention. The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC.J04n(talk page) 21:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davor Nikolić[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Davor Nikolić (2nd nomination)

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

This is not notable. It's like a poster child that nobody actually ever really heard of? Looks like a product of vanity or a case of misplaced ambitions... Standard disclaimer: I am Croatian, just like the subject. And conversely, I don't personally know the subject or anything like that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not really able to search for sources, but even if everything in the article is true, it doesn't add up to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that this topic meets WP:BIO, and no indication "that sources address the subject directly in detail". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Andrea Neilson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability established other than the fact this his mother was executed for murder. The last AfD ended with a 'No Consensus' after the article creator asked for time to expand and improve the article - here we are over ten months later and said editor hasn't made a single edit to the article since. Giant Snowman 22:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that, GS. I took the books I needed back to the library, and never got round to borrowing them again. I'm willing to userify it until I have time to work on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I rather believe that's what will have to be done, because WP:NOTINHERITED is still in force. What notability does the article creator claim for this fellow that is not linked to his mother? Ravenswing 22:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard to imagine what notability this person can be said to have; a hard-luck child who had a notorious mother, and who committed suicide before the age of 40; but what is his notability? Did he become some kind of cause celebre? If SlimVirgin wants it userfied to look for sources, more power to him/her, but there's nothing keepable at present. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no coverage independent of mother & WP:NOTINHERITED. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Experiment Show[edit]

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

Contested PROD, non notable student project. Wexcan Talk 22:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. I wish there was a speedy criterion for this sort of thing. BTW, why is the article in Category:Wikipedia soft redirects? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable student project. Snappy (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Snappy. This is an encyclopedia, not a alternative to myspace where students can promote their a project such as this where there is no sign of any evidence of any claim to meet the noatbility criteria. --04:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Students following dream , have a heart ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.255.12 (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: direct-to-dvd "show", article sourced only to show's website, no indication that sources exist that "address the subject directly in detail". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. Given that there are no cited sources on the page for the content in question, I'm going with a hard redirect (delete, then redirect) over a soft redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. — Scientizzle 20:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H.E.L.P.eR.[edit]

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

I doubt that the character would meet the notability, this article does not have a real world coverage and citations. JJ98 (Talk) 10:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 21:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The character is important to the show. The show has been deemed notable. Unless wikipedia has a policy of deleting EVERY minor character. As a random example, what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamslayer ? I agree that the article is poorly done, but could benefit from being edited. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:OTHERCRAP. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. WP:NOT#PLOT violation in WP:IN-UNIVERSE style, unsourced, no established WP:NOTABILITY. Nothing obvious to merge, but it's a main character, so there should at least be a redirect. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. The article in its current state is a major WP:PLOT fail, consisting of 99.9% plot summary (disguised as "Personality and relationships", "History and activities on the show", etc.). There's no indication that significant third-party source coverage exists from which the article could be improved. It's just plot rehash. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or bare redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. Unsourced (therefore no verifiable material to merge) and lacking any indication that substantive, reliable third-party sourcing will become available. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the five pillars A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC) (comment by indef-blocked user has been struck)[reply]

The result was Keep While AfD is not a vote, the question of whether a recent event (in this case December 17) is going to prove to be notable (in other words, whether it falls under WP:NOTNEWS to WP:EVENT) truly is a case where everyone's prediction is an educated guess. In this case, support for a keep is 2-1 that it is likely to survive the test of time, which may or may not prove the case. If this doesn't bear out in the next few months, a renomination will be appropriate. Mandsford 15:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joanna Yeates[edit]

formerly "Disappearance of Joanna Yeates"

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

Disappearance (and eventual death) of someone who isn't notable in the slightest, and while the case is tragic it's in no way worth an article; it's passing news, and WP:NOTNEWS pretty much writes that off. ƒox 21:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - meets notability guidelines with significant coverage in reliable sources. Also there is no reason what so ever to delete this article at this present time anyway. Seems like some people are in a delete frenzy.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTNEWS doesn't preculde having articles about things in the news, it simply states that we should consider the enduring notability of the event and that routine news items such as announcements, sports, or celebrities might not be appropriate. This event has received widespread and significant coverage in reliable sources, and I believe it is readily apparent that the event will not simply be transiently of note, but like other similar high-profile events such as the disappearance of Claudia Lawrence will be enduring notable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Too many deletaholics desperate for something to keep them occupied. This event is entirely notable, and has recieved widespread, considerable attention nationwide for many days. If you lot at AfD want something worthwhile to do, rather than sticking knives in everywhere, look at articles which really are pure journalism, such as this one. Orphan Wiki 22:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletaholic" am I? Thanks. This is my first nomination at AfD in a good while. 狐 FOX 01:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Without taking a stance on the article one way or another, how about a dose of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Strange though this may seem to you, I am quite sure it is possible to disagree with you on the application of policies and guidelines without there being malice, vandalism or ennui involved. Ravenswing 22:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes its better to not say anything, just a tip. Like in this case Ravenswing, I guess you mean well. But it comes out as you are providing reasons not to insult by insulting user Orphanwiki.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like "Strange though this may seem to you" is so unnecessary and definitly can only be a factor leading to a "wikipedia meta war" which is totally not the point of a Afd. I hope you see my point Ravenswing and take it a bit easier next time. As i said above, sometimes its better to not say anything at all. And in fact assume good faith.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I don't see you chastising Orphan Wiki for his unnecessary hostile and uncivil remarks. In fact, I see "Some people never give up you know" cheerleading comments. Do you genuinely believe that sometimes it's better not to say anything at all and to assume good faith? Those don't apply, after all, solely to those with whom you disagree. Ravenswing 04:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to assume good faith. And please dont take comments to personal. It could be a fact that Orphanwiki wasnt insulting anyone simply stating a true fact and I see it as a way for the other user to improve instead.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was insulting no one, merely making an observation. Orphan Wiki 19:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? "Missing white woman" syndrome is evidently a documented phenomenon that extends across multiple cases and has been remarked on by reliable sources. It's not one news incident. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else spotting the irony here? Orphan Wiki 22:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phenomenon is notable; that doesn't mean every missing white woman is independently notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According too?. On the other hand every white missing woman shouldnt be dismissed immediatly either.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, WP:NOTNEWS is a clumsy and vague policy, that needs refining, clarifying and making more sensible. The WikiPolice simply use it inaccurately when they're feeling a tad too powerful, taking the title too seriously in the process. Orphan Wiki 22:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, it's a policy whether you like it or not. 狐 FOX 01:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sure, maybe it'll be enduringly notable, but two days after it happened, we have no way of knowing. "Keep" votes that cite coverage in reliable sources don't understand what WP:NOTNEWS means. Delete without prejudice to re-creation if it remains notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And all the work people have spent on it will have to be done all over again? When there's no doubt it will HAVE to be re-created? Dear me... Orphan Wiki 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree with Orphan Wiki, that reasoning seems weak why should we delete this article on the notion that "not knowing" if this article will be enduring notability. hmm.. if that is your point I would rather suggest to Keep the article and perhaps IF it is not notable in a few weeks time then put it up for deletion again. But I have no worries about this articles notability in the long run.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. As I say, deletaholics fed up of twiddling their thumbs. Orphan Wiki 22:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people never give up you know:)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rest easy, deleted content can be recovered. (I speak from experience - I only recently asked an admin if it was okay to re-create a deleted category and he, without prompting, restored the history and everything.) But I wouldn't be so sure that "it will HAVE to be re-created." Please familiarize yourself with WP:EVENT - "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, 'shock' news, stories lacking lasting value such as 'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why put it up for Afd so fast, if it is a criteria for inclusion that a article of this kind has a long lasting notability and coverage. We are currently having a Afd discussion at a time when we can only guess if this article will have just that. But however I have still every reason to believe that this article will stand the test of time. This Afd is becoming a guessing game were people on both Keep and Delete side will give arguments and wikipedia guidelines speaking for both sides of the story. Totally senseless. And pointless. And too suggest that we should delete this article only to restore it in a few days or week time if it should become notable (in rosceleses mind) I find not productive as I stated before:).--BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument could be made for "why create this article in the first place" when we can only guess at whether or not it will be notable. ("A few days or week" won't establish lasting significance either.) Anyway, I've voted, I've linked to the relevant notability criteria which indicate that this is clearly not a notable incident at this stage, I'm out. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be "out" here but you should know it clearly meets WP:N/CA, which is the more specific part of WP:EVENT you should have linked to. --Pontificalibus (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah lets end this its starting to look like a meta-debate of why create,not create etc etc... I could honestly say that I created this article because of interest for the subject. And further,by seeing the interest for this article by other users only establishes the fact that this article is notable. People should never be "afraid" of creating new articles on the ground that it will be deleted per some guideline or pre-made rules. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No... but people should know that they just cannot create articles on whatever it comes to their mind, right? For a reason the guidelines exist. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But where does it state that articles on crimes/criminals are totally forbidden? Just asking?.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote earlier, users should make articles sutch as these or similar (providing their are sources for it and an actual event ofcourse, sutch as in this case) and then if someone feels they arent appropriate put them up for Afd and if they pass they pass and will be a part of the Wikipedia article-family. It is as simple as that.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per pointless reasons against deletion given on talk page. So what if it is on the headlines? So what if you don't like the policy? I don't think the disappeareance of a nobody should be on the encyclopedia, at least not until the complete case is known. Do we have an article on the recent Cecilia Julio Bolados murder and disappeareance? Or the massive killings by a psychopath in Alto Hospicio? Or the 1998 Jorge Matute Johns Case? No guys. Come on. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No but we have a whole lot of other Disappearance of, Death of Kidnapping of, articles. So to say that these kind of articles arent included in Wikipedia are false. Then if you feel like making a article on Cecilia Julio Bolados then its up to you but this one is about Joanna Yeates and no one else.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, learn to format your comments. Secondly, I am aware that there is a lot of other death of... series of articles, I never said it was false. I'm not against their existence either if the articles are well presented and contain definitive information, not just rumours as this one could have: murderer is not known, etc, etc. And for the Cecilia thingy, I'm not up to do anything about it. I'm not going to risk myself to have an article on AFD, where it will be definitely deleted per systemic bias et all, and... I don't have enough time to even respond you any further, so. this is my last comment here. All right. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we witheld from creating any article about an event until the event was totally over and "known", we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia.--Pontificalibus (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Grez, your argument seems to be spiteful - you think that an article on Disappearance of Cecilia Julio Bolados or on es:Caso Matute Johns, a notable Chilean murder investigation, would be deleted on English Wikipedia, so you want to delete this article. I am not so sure those articles would be deleted, though deletionists might try. Also, your position that we must never write an article on an event until all the facts are known is very strange and has no basis in policy. Fences&Windows 14:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are so right Fences. People shouldnt be told not to create articles on certain subjects. Especially when mentioning this particular event which has recieved wide media attention and notability. Seems like some people who preaches the wikipedia policys havent read trough the policys properly.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major case, more than 'routine' coverage. The case could have a major influence on people's perception of crime and investigation.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First, using WP:NOTNEWS to have an argument/discussion in an AFD is very hard. I strongly recommend using WP:EVENT instead, since it goes into considerably greater detail. The key thing that I get out of the event notability guidelines is that many news sources reporting the same thing about an event does not lead it to be notable. It needs lasting effects, depth (not breadth) of coverage, scope, duration, or something else to distinguish it to be included in an encyclopedia, and not just in a news source. I don't see any of those things in this event, and I have no reason to think that any of them are particularly likely. gnfnrf (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote earlier, that is the problem with this Afd its all speculations if it/or if it not will be lasting in its effect in media. But at the end of the day it IS having an effect at this time in the media and that is why it should be kept. we can just say that "i dont believe" that this will be a news story in two weeks time. Speculations cant be the basis for deletion in a case like this article. sorry to say.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is also why this article should be kept, what if it has a lasting effect in media over time and we delete it by tomorrow for example then we have to make the article all over again. How effective is that. Not be drag on about it but speculations should not be brought in as a reason for deletion. If anything this article should stay on so that we can see if it endures time and its effects like Gnfnrf states in his reasons for deletion.Peace.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out already, if the article is deleted and later should be recreated, any admin can access the history and provide it to any interested editor, so the argument that work will be wasted is invalid. As for speculation about the future notability of the subject, we are discussing the article now. If the subject will be shown to be notable in the future, then the article should be added to the encyclopedia in the future. And lastly "having an effect at this time" is not a criterion in WP:EVENT. In fact, it is specifically structured to reject that as an indicator of notability. gnfnrf (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"what if it has a lasting effect in media over time and we delete it by tomorrow for example then we have to make the article all over again" we cannot keep this article because it will be notable in future as per WP:CRYSTAL. WP:NOHARM and WP:EFFORT are also not reasons to keep. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N/CA is the specific part of WP:EVENT that deals with cases like this. It says: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." The nutshell for Event says: "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." As this event meets that requirement as it has has attained significant national coverage in reliable sources for an extended period of time, and is currently the leading news item in the UK. SilkTork *^YES! 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest BabbaQ refrain from responding excessively as per WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you by that implying that I can no¨t express my opinions just because I am of another opinion then you. Then you are wrong again, but I will assume good faith for your recommendation this time. Even though I will continue to express my point of view just as mutch as you do daily on different Afds and discussions. Its a kind of "Dont throw rocks in glass houses" kind of situation. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a major Murder case in UK. Its just not a disappearance case but a murder case and it has received a lot of media attention lately so keep.Vin99 (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment I think a number of people here do not understand the meaning of "speedy" in front of deletion discussion opinions. Or, alternately, I don't. "Speedy keep" means "close this AfD as Keep regardless of any consensus because there is a fatal flaw in the process, such as a bad-faith nomination, the version of the article brought to AfD was vandalized, or something else that renders the process broken." If you mean, "I really think you should keep this", that is typically represented as "Strong Keep". Can someone confirm my assumptions in this matter? gnfnrf (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this does not qualify for speedy keep, WP:SK. many of those voting for speedy keep fail to address how this is just WP:RECENT media coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well the deleters fails completely to give a good reason for their opinions for deletion so.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, of course it's just WP:RECENT coverage, as the event has only recently happened. That is not an argument for deletion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Delete proponents have just not advanced a reason for their stance with which you agree. That is not the same thing. Ravenswing 22:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are like attitudes, different.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Gnfnrf good comments, WP:EVENT applies here. this happened recently so there is no surprise there is recent media coverage. if it gets coverage 6 months from now then it may qualify for an article. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N/CA is the specific part of WP:EVENT that deals with cases like this. It says: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." The nutshell for Event says: "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." As this event meets that requirement as it has has attained significiant national coverage in reliable sources for an extended period of time, and is currently the leading news item in the UK. SilkTork *^YES! 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far it is not clear at all whether this case is going to have historic significance. Of course murder cases are in the news, as is the weather, the local soccer results, and a lot of other things that do not belong into an ecyclopedia. --Pgallert (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Weather and soccer events that become big enough to have press conferences would likely be sufficiently notable to have their own articles. KimChee (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{*Note At this time the article was moved from Disappearance of Joanna Yeates to Murder of Joanna Yeates. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep Now this has become a murder investigation it has achieved greater notability. However, we may have to look at it again in a few weeks as more information becomes available. If it turns out she knew her killer then it may not become a significant case in the long run, but if it turns out to be linked to other crimes (as mentioned in the article) then it will have significance and we'll probably end up merging the relevant information. Also, I know other stuff exists but I can think of other crimes which received much less attention and about which Wikipedia has articles. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, I fixed the Joanna Yeates redirect. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Because when this Afd is closed and people might be searching for her name only I guess its good to find it immediatly. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Massive amounts of coverage well beyond anything WP:NOTNEWS covers (that's a prohibition of basing articles on routine coverage; wall-to-wall coverage of this disappearance and murder investigation are not "routine"). If you actually read WP:EVENT you'll find it advises against early deletion nominations, and points out that recent events are not automatically non-notable (that would be a perverse position). If the coverage dies away you can consider alternatives like a selective merge to List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom, but this mania for nominating high-profile investigations has to stop. It's ridiculous, you make Wikipedia a laughing stock by doing this. Fences&Windows 14:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the most high-profile murders in the UK for many years, and in my view easily meets Wikipedia's notabily guidelines for events. The article in question has been improved dramatically since it was first nominated for deletion, and will continue to grow and develop. The Celestial City (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Good to see some sort of consensus after all.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been such cases before which have been noted by Wikipedia articles in the past, so why should this one be any different? This is quite a sad and shocking case and is worthy of such coverage and will most likely be a matter of which people may wish to refer to in the future. Threfore keep this article and keep adding detail to it to make it a very robust source of reference. Cexycy (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly more than routine coverage for anyone who's actually bothered to read WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There are around a thousand homicides in England & Wales each year, with most barely making the local news, if at all, let alone being reported at a national level. The fact that this case is very much attracting the latter attention is proof enough of its notability. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I deliberately withheld my opinion to see how the case would unfold. It has since been reported that the investigation has become one of the largest in Bristol, so that is enough for me. KimChee (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is NOT NEWS - simples! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.214.76 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, however 99% of Wikipedia articles are basaed on history, which is what this matter will become very shortly. Cexycy (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is more than simply news due to the amount of coverage this event and investigation has received. The Celestial City (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If Wikipedia wasnt news at all then basically no articles would ever be expanded my friend.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.71.115 (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Says you! I suppose all murder articles here are pointless, as well as genicide and all other historic events? Cexycy (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain in what way you find this article "pointless"? The Celestial City (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. I love the thought that went into that carefully constructed entry. Orphan Wiki 23:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now We can revisit this in a few months to examine enduring notability WP:NOTNEWS is hard to judge at the moment of the NEWS. I suspect greater weight for WP:NOTNEWS aruements once coverage is slopps off The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And the fact that Yeates landlord has been arrested, Jeffries also made comments about the disappearance in the days before in a possible attempt to give false leads to the investigators makes this story special.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A suspect lying to the coppers, whatever's next? Abductive (reasoning) 12:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing remarkable about this local case. Its the usual Missing white woman syndrome, and that's all. Wikipedia should not stoop to the level of breathless reporting on such events. Abductive (reasoning) 12:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the several hundreds of other white missing womens on this Wikipedia.. Why shouldnt we include this particular one then?--BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start nominating... Abductive (reasoning) 12:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For once we have a article which actually has recieved both the notability needed and the extensive news coverage needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. Abductive (reasoning)

Daah.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make something notable or not, if it's made notable by excessive media reporting in comparison to other routine murders, then it's notable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever its outcome I have a sense this case will probably stand the test of time, and will be revisited by various media from time to time (True Crimes and that sort of thing). Also very few similar cases in the UK appear to have generated a comparable level of coverage (not even those relating to Melanie Hall and Claudia Lawrence seem to have done so). The only one I can think of which was as widely reported is the disappearance and murder of Rachel McLean from 1991 which concerned an Oxford student who vanished and was later found to have been murdered. We may also need to consider the use of social media in this case. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though I think the deletionists are closer to the truth in this discussion, I have to admit that right now this case is on the front page of every British paper and therefore it's not at all impossible that it will become something that's more than just news. So, as Zhou Enlai might have said, it's too soon to say what the value of this article is. Let's keep it for now and discuss it again in a few months. Skarioffszky (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All I am personally questioning is why some users are so in a deletion frenzy they want it gone and no discussion o it. And if you bring it up then you are attacked. Anyway I say as most users here Keep it and re-evaluate the situation in a few months time if needed. But we shouldnt either say that its likely that it will be deleted in a few months time. Because it has already achieved alot of coverage and reached the standard of notability needed trough sources and the event which has surrounded the case. And the deletionists arent closer to the truth in this discussion all they point towards are different guidelines which can be twisted around in a number of ways. Anyway its a keeper for now and that is all that matters. As TheRtroGuy states "Also very few similar cases in the UK appear to have generated a comparable level of coverage".--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It's been quite a tragic death I know, and there are plenty of appropriate and relevant citations. Maybe that's why some people want this kept. But there is a reason why I'd prefer to delete it: It is a death of a non-notable person as per WP:NOTNEWS, and when I tried to create this article, it got prodded per WP:NOTNEWS and eventually got deleted. However, I'm absolutely sure that there is an article on Wikinews based on this. Minima c (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we should delete Joanna Yeates article on the ground that this article was deleted?.. or please correct me if im wrong?:). If a person who has died get national and even some international headline then isnt that so to speak above and beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Seems like a very narrow minded view (no insult intended). Cheers. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS clearly states that Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. We cant be sure of that at this time. One thing we can be sure of is that Joanna Yeates story currently definitly is enduring both when it comes to coverage both for the person herself and the event surrounding her death.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That case [Alize Mirza] seems to have received far less coverage than the Yeates case. Consider, as someone above did, that there are something like 1,000 homicides in this country each year and most of them merit no more than a few paragraphs of news. The sheer amount of printed words on this one demonstrates its potential for having longevity, and high profile cases are often revisited later for the purposes of television documentaries, etc. I'm sorry your article got deleted, but thems the breaks as they say (I've certainly lost a few in my time). Myself, I did consider an article on the murder of Jacqueline Thomas, a notable case from the early 1960s in Birmingham which was only resolved a couple of years ago thanks to advances in DNA, but wasn't sure even that would have met the guidelines. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, comparing the two crime (Mirza and Yeates) articles are like comparing apples and oranges.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTNEWS no longer justifies the point; the case has became too well known. The fledgling article has expanded significantly and for the article to be deleted under these terms would be grossly unfair. As my aforemention points makes clear, the case has became to notable not for it to have an article. Besides, it's a flimsy point for deletion anyway: judging by this, no present event could ever have an article created on it, and the timespan between what is current and what is considered history is vague and up for personal debate. Unfortunately, the media cannot be stopped with regards to the classic "missing white woman syndrome", but whatever their motive to report on the case, it has now inevitably drifted too far into the public eye for it to be simply deleted on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWS. Every day this debate last for, the case for keep becomes stronger, as it shows its endurability as a notable article. Patyo1994 (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that even more people understand that this is a slam dunk Keep Afd no question about it, and I also think and agree that as time has gone by since December 27 when this Afd was initiated the case for Keep has grown stronger and stronger. Which also proves it will endure over time as it has basically already established itself as a "forever keep" article.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Orphan Wiki. Easily enough sources to support this article. CPerked (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe its time to close this discussion soon. Word!:)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is very good at covering this sort of event. Yes, there needs to be a judgement about when an event becomes significant enough to justify an article. Depth of significant coverage and reliable sources is seen as the main judgement used, and this has that. In essence, the Wikipedia community is not deciding what is notable, it is the wider community that makes that judgement. Our purpose is to summarise the knowledge that is out there. We don't select or reject it - we just cover it. SilkTork *^YES! 18:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:EVENT has been cited a few times in this discussion, I have said in a couple of places: WP:N/CA is the specific part of WP:EVENT that deals with cases like this. It says: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." The nutshell for Event says: "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." As this event meets that requirement as it has has attained significiant national coverage in reliable sources for an extended period of time, and is currently the leading news item in the UK. SilkTork *^YES! 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The news coverage has been for about two weeks. How is that an extended period of time? gnfnrf (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's better than when the article was created, but it's still not in depth coverage and it's still way too soon to know whether this will have any long-term impact or effects - come back in 9 months and we'll have a much better idea of what it's long-term cultural impact might be. Two weeks is not nearly enough time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No this case has reached notability needed. I believe that it is more your personal believe that it hasnt than pure facts. Its on the main news on the UK every day. thousands of people disappear every year in the UK not everybody gets this amount of coverage. But I however agree with you that two weeks arent enough, this article should stay on Wikipedia for months before we can in good faith establish that this article has stood the test of time. Until then its all a discussion of pure speculations.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been sustained domestic and international coverage. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't blieve that such a duscussion is taking place, to be honest! This is quite clearly a notable matter and yet despite a very shocking and upsetting death which only was discovered a matter of days ago there are people here wishing to delete such an article and practically brush it away like it is nothing. It most certainly is NOT nothing! Cexycy (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its strange I agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...In case you haven't noticed, it's an encyclopedia, not the Met's back catalogue of homicide cases. 狐 FOX 01:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so hostile, that hardly helps your cause. Trying to establish non-notability to a highly notable article...--BabbaQ (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems like there's been a wee bit of canvassing going on here. 狐 FOX 01:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That has to stand for you. I did not state in any way shape or form how the admin should do. And as the result was that the Afd should stay on for a few days more which I agreed on its hardly a matter of canvassing. Always assume good faith, though I could question you brought this up in good faith evne though I hope so ofcourse.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There has been a lot of coverage of this, yes, but all that means is that it has a higher chance of becoming notable in the future than <insert other missing white woman here>, but that does not mean it is notable yet. As has been pointed out what is required is significant depth of coverage, and I'm just not seeing that, I'm just seeing lots of news organisations commenting on the latest press release (and most of this article is just synthesis of these reports). If people put as much effort into coverage of events like this on Wikinews, which is where this belongs, rather than trying to create encyclopaedia articles about them then both projects would benefit. Cases like the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the disappearance of Lord Lucan are examples of about where the threshold should be - "notability" and "newsworthiness" are very different concepts, Wikipedia deals with the former, news media deals with the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy states that the coverage must be in-depth or signficant. Clearly, in-depth coverage such as this is something that takes time to emerge. We don't delete every article about a current event until in-depth coverage appears. That is not policy. Also, Wikinews is a different website and not relevant to this discussion.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but Wikinews is the place where this article should be. Wikinews was created specifically for that reason, otherwise Wikipedia would be even more full of news articles, don't you think? Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but frankly Wikinews is a dead project. And this article has per fact reached notaiblity that is needed. Its a fact.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the risk of starting to sound boring, to my mind this case is now notable for three reasons. I've discussed two of them previously, but would just like to recap if you'll give me a few moments.

The level of media coverage, though not unprecedented, is unusual.
This is kind of an extention to the first point, but it is unusual for the Attorney General to make a public statement such as this one regarding how aspects of the case have been reported.
This is a weaker reason than the first two, but nonetheless worth considering. The fact that various social media were used in the search for Yeates when she was a missing person gives added weight to the argument for notability.

There is also a fourth reason. Reported yesterday was the fact that police were investigating a similar crime from the 1970s for possible links. If a connection was established then that would obviously further strengthen the case for a keep. That's all I wanted to say really. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - long-term notability has not yet been established. A sad case, but there's nothing about it that makes it more significant than any other murder. Robofish (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we delete this now how can we then establish long term notability. It says itself to get to know this articles long tirm notability it needs to stay on for a couple of more months. Im questioning, what is the hurry?--BabbaQ (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL applies here, trying to argue for keep on the basis of future notability is not a good argument. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comparisons to the McCann case and others really are stretching reality indeed tbh. The national ongoing coverage of this case is down to one thing only - missing white woman syndrome, and like it or not, using that phenomenon as the bar for inclusion to an encyclopoedia would be like using in-depth coverage in Heat Magazine to define who and who was not a notable person. Being "one of the largest police investigations in Bristol in years" is as close as this article comes to asserting lasting notability, and that's pretty weak imho. Who remembers the last holder of this particular record for example? Do we have we an article on it? The coverage is not indepth as defined in EVENT. The AG commenting on it is pretty irrelevant to the notability of the case, although that should be noted somewhere else. The use of social media is about two years too late to even be remarkable. Police speculation about similarities to other cases is just that, speculation. Quality of the current article is also totally irrelevant, and it's not that great either - we really need to know her hobbies do we? It is overflowing with trivia and salacious detail which an encyclopoedia would never include. While Wikipedia does include breaking news, it is not a breaking news service. And when there is no other indication at all as to why it is being covered here, then yes, it very much is policy to not create the article unless or until it can demonstrate via it's content, that is has, or is likely to have, proper, lasting, notability, via actual sources. That can even be of the predictive kind, but this article doesn't even include that as yet. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To compare Madeleine McCann to this case is like comparing apples and oranges, its about two totally different kind of disappearances/murders.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think there's anything salacious in the article. Some of the stuff which appeared in the media yesterday could be labelled as such, but the article itself is fine in that sense. There's some trivia, such as her hobbies and interests, but that's not a problem in itself as the information can be removed if necessary. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. I have no doubt that the use of social media is nothing new in such cases, but it's certainly the most high profile example in the UK. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple other examples of otherwise irrelevant news topics, murder investigations etc are recorded on wikipedia. I would not support the creation of these articles, but once created they have a presence that we should try to maintain through to a conclusion and/or actual establishment of notability etc we are not in a position to state if this is a Madeleine McCann or Rhys Jones equivalent case as yet. At the moment the article is cited, and maintained, so let it run its course. Lack of consensus here too. Koncorde (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL says we shouldn't keep something just because it might become notable in the future (because it just as easily might never be). Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that reasoning falls on itself as the case of Joanna Yeates IS notable now. Its not a question if it will become notable in the future.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall clarify - the article clearly meets notability now, and is experiencing a sustained media campaign and prominence. My comment was really targeted at the the argument that it wont meet notability in the longterm, this of course is something that we wont know until the longterm. Hence keep until such point as it can actually be assessed. Koncorde (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But notability is not temporary. So if it's notable now, it's notable and shouldn't be deleted.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed notability is not temporary, but equally notability is not retroactive - if it's notable in future it is notable from them onwards, but it doesn't mean it was always notable. Because notability is not defined by the amount of coverage something gets, it has not been established that this case is notable now. The article is almost entirely trivia and synthesis of the extensive but shallow news coverage, and when you strip away all that you're left with something that's notable for the families involved, and notable news in the city of Bristol, and a single sentence example for the Missing white woman syndrome article. I'm presently about 20 miles away from Bristol, but even this close it's not even notable here - which should give you an indication of how notable it isn't for a global encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can all think of articles that in our opinion are full of trivia and a synthesis of shallow coverage, but our opinions are not important. Notabiltiy is about the extent of covergae, not the perceived quality of coverage. "Significant coverage" means sources address the subject "directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.. more than a trivial mention..". The sources here do deal with the subject in detail. It may not be the kind of detail you like, but it's sufficent detail to meet our guidelines for inclusion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pontificalibus, if "our opinions are not important", no articles would actually be removed from Wikipedia, don't you think? Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our opinions on the quality of an article have no bearing on whether the subject matter is notable or not.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to ask those voting for Delete, what is the great hurry with deleting this article? One of the reasons often brought up are that establishment of long standing notability has not been established. But the best and most effective way to see if this article will have a long-term notability and coverage would be to keep the article on for a couple of more months. If we delete it now it will be hard to establish any kind of that. As someone wrote, 2 weeks is hardly enough time to establish long term notability for a crime-article. Also I disagree with the statements that notability hasnt been established, because it has trough a high amount of coverage which goes beyond the normal stnadard for a missing/murdered person. This is my final statement in this Afd. Peace out.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we need this article around to know whether it is notable in future or not, then by definition it isn't notable. What determines notability isn't the presence or absence of a Wikipedia article, but significant coverage in reliable independent sources (per the WP:GNG). If that is present then we can use that to establish whether it's notable or not, so we don't need the article. If it isn't present then it isn't notable, so we don't need the article. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EVENT#Inclusion criteria, most significantly "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources" which I think it meets. WP:NOTNEWS means we won't have an article on a murder case like this one reported earlier today, but for a case that has achieved so much coverage, we should have an article. SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To the people voting delete because of "missing white woman syndrome" and dismissing this as a non-notable event "because it's just news!" I'm sorry, but notability is defined SOLELY on the quality and breadth of relevant sources. This article has all of that and more. It seems people are arguing for deletion because they dislike the fact the media is reporting so widely on this event, which is something that should not influence its inclusion in Wikipedia. illspirit|talk 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I'm recommending to delete this because the only claim for inclusion that this has is that it is being widely reported by the news media. Being widely reported by the news media means something is newsworthy, it doesn't mean it's notable (some notable things are widely reported by the news media, some aren't. Some things that are widely reported by the news media are notable, some aren't). Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the extensive coverage the incident has received in reliable and verifiable sources extending over a period of time after the initial report. Alansohn (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfDs exist to generate views from a wide range of editors. they do not exist for one editor to dominate discussion and excessively respond. dominating discussion does not let others feel welcome to display a contrary viewpoint. this is one of the worst cases of WP:BLUDGEON I have ever seen. the user in question should be asked to refrain from responding any further in this AfD and that the AfD let it run its course. this user has excessively expressed their viewpoint. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore from WP:BLUDGEON:

When you dominate a conversation by having multiple talk entries and address every other person's opinion, others may see you as attempting to "own" an article or the subject at hand. This is a type of fanboyism and reduces your credibility within the conversation. It is also very annoying and inconsiderate to others.

Keep It needs notability. Whilst I sympathise that this is just one of many, many, many murders, it has got the attention it has and it is a decently written article. I see no advantage from deletion.--EchetusXe 09:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please could you be clearer with what you mean - "it needs notability" would generally be a reason to delete an article rather than to keep it. Having a Wikipedia article requires the subject to already have notability, a Wikipedia article does not convey notability onto its subject. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - although not written very well, the first three words are explained thoroughly by the rest of the comment, and the header that is Keep. Orphan Wiki 14:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've read the arguments here and find the keep arguments more convincing. WP:NOTNEWS lists examples like "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" as things not to be included in Wikipedia. I'd leave it for now: if it turns out that the story isn't as important in a few months, it can be deleted then. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument for "delete" here seems to confuse NOTNEWS with being wilfully slow on the uptake just for the sake of it. Anything that has filled the front pages of the UK tabloids for a week is notable for our purposes. --FormerIP (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so... using that criterion: do you remember when the UK tabloids posted the news about Gordon Brown's favourite cookie?. I do, but not because of that we need to have Gordon Brown's favourite cookie in blue. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Warne's alleged affair with Liz Hurley also filled with tabloids. maybe a Warne Hurley affair article is in order. LibStar (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I'm not sure what the comments about Gordon Brown's favourite cookie and Shane Warne's alleged affair with Liz Hurley are supposed to prove, because the article being discussed here is not about a "favourite cookie" news story or a media circus surrounding a celebrity affair. Each new article is evaluated on its own merits. In any event, in the cookie and affair examples, the people concerned do have wikipedia articles and a small mention of these events could potentially be added to those articles, with references. Format (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no reason, seemingly in policy or otherwise, not to keep this. The reasons for deleting it appear to often be that she's an "abosolute nobody". To me that says more about the people demanding deleting the article than it does about wiki policy. She may not have been in the public view before these events (that doesn't make her a nobody rather it makes her not previously notable by wiki policy) however she is now very much in the public eye and fully notable. Danno81 (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this article. There is no apparent reason for not keeping this article. High number of Keep votes now to.--83.254.191.130 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)— 83.254.191.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please could you expand on why you believe that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this article? There are many editors in good standing giving reasoned arguments both for and against this article, so a WP:SNOW close would be very inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It has some lasting effects beyond the crime. For example, "Operation Braid", has become one of the largest police investigations in Bristol" which is clearly a historical point. So, it complies with WP:NOTNEWS. Soewinhan (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. This case has nothing out of the ordinary about it. News organisations report on all murders - if they didn't, we'd life in a very poor world. If this stays, then so could every single murder investigation however small or large. Brad78 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does have notable lasting effects and it is not a simple investigation. The crime breaks records with 70 detectives and civilian staff under the direction of Detective Chief Inspector. And one of the largest publicized crime in UK. Soewinhan (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:EVENT speaks of enduring notability and lasting effect, as opposed to transient coverage at a news story. It's always difficult to make that judgment after a recent event. But there's no realistic suggestion that this event will have enduring notability, so the article is premature and should be deleted until notability can subsequently be demonstrated to be enduring. "A burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable". At the moment, a burst or spike in news coverage is all that this appears to be. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per above.Soewinhan (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whats WRONG with PEOPLE???? Why not delete entire WIKIPEDIA. Just delete everything and this CRAZY Delete-o-mania will stop. That said this murder case had international coverage so strong keep.Vin99 (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point me out at least one non-UK link/news article about Yeates to prove it "has received international coverage"? Well, to be honest, it proves nothing, that doesn't buy notability! Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I myself watched it in news in my country then came online to see page up for deletion and I lives 20 countries away from UK. Just go and google the case and see the coverage it has received.Vin99 (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a typical annual figure for murders in the UK is 1,201 (and 197,333 worldwide). There is nothing about this one that separates it from the others, other than that it is prominent in the news. — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, as per the previously mentioned WP:BLUDGEON, can certain users stop responding to so many people that hold the opposite view to you? Several people from both sides of the debate (you know who you are and as your signature appears after each comment, so does everyone else) feel the need to keep in check every one else who hold the opposite opinion on this article. This discussion does not need nurse maiding by the few. Let others speak their minds without the need to feel like you have to correct their point of view! Danno81 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aren't we forgetting that Wikipedia has similar pages, such as the one about Suzy Lamplugh and many others involving people who have gone missing, whether murdered or missing forever? TurboForce (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at this in terms of some of the points suggested by WP:EVENT as helping to establish notability. In-depth coverage: definitely, no problems there. Widespread and/or international coverage: covered in a multitude of national sources and at least two international ones, which should be enough. Duration of coverage: could be argued either way. After only two weeks it cant't be proven that the event will be covered for a long time to come, so there are possible WP:CRYSTAL issues; however, the coverage so far has been non-stop and shows no signs of abating. Geographical scope: although this is effectively a local story and direct effects are largely confined to Bristol, the Facebook campaign suggests a possible significant impact over a widespread societal group. Again, could be argued either way. Lasting effects: probably not yet. Closest at present seems to be a claim that her landlord was seeking damages for wrongful arrest, and possibly the criticism of media coverage. Specific guidelines of crimes: WP:N/CA says that As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. All of which is a very long way of saying weak keep. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrium Installer[edit]

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

No reliable sources that discuss this term; fails WP:N Tassedethe (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any reliable sources to attest to notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced article on obscure neologism, lacking any indication of coverage in Google News/Books. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hall (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable baseball player that has not reached a minor league level higher than Rookie ball. X96lee15 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator's rationale. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Muboshgu. Alex (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In independent baseball after one year in low minors.. definitely not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per Safiel below. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Cleve[edit]

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

unremarkable person WuhWuzDat 20:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Unremarkable person, COI autobiography to boot. Safiel (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Blowing Snow Advisory. Brandon (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mashable[edit]

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

I'm seeing lot of "Mashable reported that blah blah blah happened" hits on Gnews, but absolutely nothing that constitutes non-trivial coverage about the site itself — just name dropping it. Only sources are self-references. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Steven Walling 21:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Obviously notable blog with 30 million pageviews a month. Mashable is one of the most widely-read tech publications of all time (ahead of Boing Boing, Gawker, Gizmodo, and Engadget, etc.) and is syndicated by CNN. There is a special difficulty in finding third party source material about any media outlet, since others are loathe to cover a competitor (I should know, I used to write for one of those competitors), but the site's readership is obvious to anyone who takes ten seconds to visit Alexa. Steven Walling 20:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument, neither is WP:BIGNUMBER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Use some common sense here and look at the links below and in the article, instead of throwing acronyms at me stubbornly. This is not just some mediocre blog looking to spam us. Steven Walling 20:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The site is clearly well-read, and I'm inclined to believe that it's notable. I can't source that, however - which is a problem. Some sources may be available at the article of Pete Cashmore, the site's founder. Alexa rankings do not notability make, but that's a factor as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you dig through a Google News search for the site, making sure to remove stories from the site itself with "-mashable.com" or the like, you can see references to it from third party sources aplenty. Steven Walling 20:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Prove it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Found in five minutes: [1], [2], [3], [4], as well as tons of passing mentions in publications like the New York Times. Steven Walling 20:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per walling.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources found by Steven Walling are multiple and appear to be reliable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, lazy, uninformed, and inaccurate nomination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and audibly gasp at the hypocrisy of Wolfowitz calling someone lazy. --89.211.152.65 (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – Per Steven Walling. Ten Pound Hammer hasn't objected to the news articles Walling has found. Some facts from the Pete Cashmore article should be incorporated into the Mashable article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing provided looks good enough to me. Not sure why I wasn't finding it in my initial (admittedly cursory - which is why I didn't go either way) search. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 01:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vinster[edit]

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

Nonnotable, newly invented "subculture" classification with no sources for the actual existence of the thing described, much less for the notability of the thing described. The article creator has offered no sourcing other than Urban Dictionary [5], which of course is not sufficient, but they removed the prod tag so here we are. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC) — Gavia immer (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can find no reliable sources to attest to notability. (Also, it's a direct copy of the Urban Dictionary [6] page, which has a copyright statement at the bottom). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a reliable word that describes a rising subculture. To delete it now and not add upon it would only complicate creating it and building upon it later. Also, the fact that Zebedee noted it from urban dictionary is proof of the fact that it is a true word. Perhaps changing however the definition from that of Urban Dictionary would be of use though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyheymrgray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC) — Heyheymrgray (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but notability - can you find any reliable sources (see WP:RS) that support its notability (see WP:N)? Just a dictionary definition is not sufficient, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Reliable Sources cited or found. The website www.vinster.com, found at Google, is described as "under construction." Nothing relevant found at Google News. Incidentally, the entire article is copied verbatim from the Urban Dictionary; is that a copyvio? --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sole discernable source for this obscure neologism is the Urban Dictionary, which is not a reliable source per WP:RSN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Schlesinger[edit]

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

Author of a single gaming book and website. Lots of references to, and praise for, his book is available in a Google search, but I could find little or nothing from reliable sources on a quick scan-through. Google News search on <"don schlesinger" blackjack> since 2004 gets only one hit, and it a mere passing reference. Non-notable. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Nominator now recommends "keep"; see below. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know who added the article, but am a bit surprised as to the deletion suggestion. I don’t clearly understand the rules for notability. But, there are a large number of WP pages that are related to Blackjack, and Schlesinger is a legend in the field having edited about half of the respected books on the subject, and having been mentioned in nearly all of them, as well as having had scores of articles published on the subject and editing for accuracy the published articles of many other Blackjack writers. I realize that Lady Gaga gets a lot more hits than Herbert Hoover in Google News, but don’t think that’s the arbitrator of notability.:) Seriously, in numerous scientific fields, a search for the acknowledged top expert in the field in Google News will probably get no hits. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. You don't understand the rules. They're actually very simple. It's not about fame. It's not about importance. It's not about Google hits. We're writing an encyclopaedia here, not name checking the famous, the important, and the expert. In fact, it's not about anything at all that you brought up. It's about whether this person's life and works have been documented in depth, in published works that are independent of the subject, meaning that a neutral and verifiable biographical encyclopaedia article, free from original research, can be written (based upon such documentation) about this person's life and works. An encyclopaedia systematizes knowledge. Does the knowledge of this person's life and works exist, written down, fact checked, reviewed, and published?
  TransporterMan looked for things that documented this person's life and works and came up empty handed. The article doesn't cite anything that documents this person's life and works, and was badly written. You haven't pointed to anything that documents this person's life and works. Prove that this isn't all just made up information about a person that whose life and works are not known and publicly and properly recorded and published, by pointing to where this person's life and works have been properly documented and published outwith Wikipedia. That's your only valid counterargument. All of the rest, including every point that you made, is irrelevant. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I’m not the one that said it was about fame or Google hits. That’s the concept that I was criticizing. Also, I don’t understand how the fact that the article is poorly written is relevant, and was not mentioned in the deletion request. I agree the author did a poor job. The question is: Does it belong in WP. There are numerous WP articles on Blackjack luminaries. The only ones that fit your description are the ones that were publicity hounds that drank/drugged themselves to death or found some other way to capitalize on their background, often largely invented, or authored “pulp fiction.” With all due respect, it seems to me that you and TransporterMan are arguing the “fame” angle (e.g. not in Google News), not I. I am arguing the “knowledge” and usefulness angle. I think WP should be about knowledge – not celebrity. And certainly not about some guy that played Blackjack or was once on a quiz show about BJ, or anything else about the current concentration on fleeting celebrity.
    I have no vested interest in this particular article. But, most of the articles about people in this field are far better candidates for removal. Should I add them all to the deletion page? If you want to delete a Blackjack article about someone known for his work in the field by everyone in the field, let us delete the articles about the players that have stuck their names in WP first. I would hope that WP is about actual knowledge, not popular knowledge. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thought I’d add some refs. http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/Pubs_BJF.htm 13 of numerous articles by Schlesinger. From The Encyclopedia of Casino Twenty-One, a few of a couple dozen references to Schlesinger:
    http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/I.htm
    http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/D.htm
    http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/S.htm#SCORE
    http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/F.htm#Fab4
    - “Isn’t irony ironic” (unattributed). Sorry to go on about this. But, I like analysis. And I adore irony. I also adore WP. I like its rules, as strange as they sometimes appear. Let me talk a bit about irony.
      The “find sources” header of this page has links to news, books and scholar. Who cares about images? TRANSPORTERMAN says refs in news about Schlesinger are rare. But, he didn’t mention the books or scholar links. I tend to think that those are more important. After all, is Augustus Caesar is Google News that often? But, that’s just me.
      If you click on the links that he ignored, books and scholar, you will find a very large number of refs. Hardly surprising as Schlesinger in mentioned in nearly every decent book on BJ in the last couple decades. In fact, if you have an extensive library of such books (as many of us do in the field), I would bet that Thorp, Wong and Schlesinger are the top three names in those books, in no certain order. (The fourth most reffed name is well down the list. And, come to think of it, it may be me. Who cares?)
      As for the irony, David Eppstein has voted DELETE. But, he also has a personal WP page, and I can’t find “news” links about him either. He would claim that the article should be deleted for lack of resources, when his article has the same lack as stated at the top of the page. Let me go further. David’s article says that he is a professor at UC Irvine. The most famous of all BJ luminaries is Edward O. Thorp, an ex-professor at the same university, well-known for his work in the markets, and a well-known philanthropist. But, Dr. Thorp said about Don Schlesinger “Blackjack Attack is a valuable resource for serious blackjack players. It represents the distilled wisdom of twenty-five years from a master teacher and player." -- Edward O. Thorp.
      David, please do not take this as a criticism and I don’t mean this to be personal in any way whatsoever and am not suggesting that your page be deleted. We probably have much in common as, looking at your page, I knew John Carr (one of the first presidents of the ACM, back in the 50s, that you belong to) and I gave a silly lecture at U of P on the subject of Monte Carlo techniques when you were three years old. (I’m getting older as we speak.) Not that I had any idea what I was talking about. Just find it humorous. But, you might check with Thorp about Schlesinger.
      I’m not voting on this issue as the fact that I’m the only one here that is in the BJ field would probably be a violation of WP:COI. And, I’ve been told that I don’t understand the rules.:) But, it seems rather strange that people that have no knowledge of the field are voting on the relevance of one of the most respected researchers in the field. The perils of democracy.:)
      Incidentally, I find it odd that no one has mentioned this deletion request on any BJ related page. Objective3000 (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of the reliable sources about him or his books that would allow him to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google books has 55 hits for Don Schlesinger and most of them are referring to the person on this page. This seems to be sufficient second party hits for notability: he really is a big name in gambling analysis. Francis Bond (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

e.g. Credit goes to Don Schlesinger, author of Blackjack Attack (RGB Publishing), for the discovery that the indices in the first 18 lines of the table above ..

*Delete. Miserably fails WP:BK. He is not a notable author and does not have a notable book. His 55 GHits are pathetically small for a writer, and the people who published his book, "RGE Publishing, Ltd," barely do any better with 86 GHits [7]. In short, he may be "known" to a few people sitting around a table playing cards, but he is not notable in the world at large, which is what WP:BK requires. Qworty (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sad commentary. “he may be ‘known’ to a few people sitting around a table playing cards” OK, you don’t like gambling analysis. But, why would you belittle the numerous PHDs that find this a worthy study and its relationship to the financial markets and human behavior, or the fact that Schlesinger also has written extensively on financial markets, closely related to gambling? And why would you use a Google search that included quotes and LTD when it is not a UK corporation, seriously limiting the results of an organization that has been famous for decades? Remove the LTD, and I get 5,500 hits, not 86, even in quotes. (155,000 without quotes.) This is a decades old publishing house famous for many wonderful publications. And why would you use a word like “pathetically?” And why would you consider researchers in a niche area to be non-notable? How many nominees for the Noble prize in esoteric areas are known by the “world at large” as defined by Google News? Seriously folks, is WP an encyclopedia, or a gossip column? Is the research here so bad that we simply accept poorly phrased Google searches as a reliable source? Why not just remove WP and tell people to do Google searches? Sorry for being so blunt. But, a very poorly phrased Google search is not evidence of anything. TRANSPORTERMAN gave me something to think about. With all due respect, this edit just seems mean-spirited.Objective3000 (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You haven't referenced a single policy. Take a look at WP:AUTHOR. Take a look at WP:BK. Take a look at WP:BIO. Take a look at WP:RS. Take a look at WP:V. If you have an argument to make for how this guy might satisfy any of those policies, then you have something meaningful to say to us. If you can't state how he is notable according to these policies, then you have nothing at all to say that's meaningful. If you think this guy is so great, why don't you go build a website that endlessly worships him? It still won't meet the standards of a source we can use here, of course, but you might feel some satisfaction. You're like a guy who bursts into a courtroom shouting invectives and saying that the lawyers and judge don't know what they're talking about--well, you're never going to get anywhere being that way. Brush up on policy first, then come back and make a reasoned argument based on policy. Also, you REALLY need to go read WP:NOTDIR and WP:OUT, as you seem to think that an encyclopedia is nothing more than a repository for every obscure, unsubstantiated factoid that ever existed. Qworty (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR states: “The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.” Indeed, he is referenced in dozens of books by other authors. As I said above, he is one of the three most referenced authors in the field. WP:BK is not relevant. He is not known for writing a book. He was well-known long before writing a book for decades of research, numerous articles and work on others' books. That's why he is mentioned so often in the Encyclopedia of Twenty-One. He happens to have also written a book. I don’t think that is a disqualification. WP:BIO states: “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” Again, his work is used in dozens of published books and hundreds of articles. WP:V is easy if you do a proper search. Now, may I suggest you read WP:CIV and refrain from uncivil language like “why don't you go build a website that endlessly worships him?” Objective3000 (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Okay, now you're getting somewhere. You're halfway there. You're asserting notability, but you're not yet demonstrating it. What you need to do next is show us all of the specific sources so that we can evaluate them. Qworty (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are a few books that mention Schlesinger. You may think that he is only known by "a few people sitting around a table playing cards," but nine of these authors have pages in Wiki and ten are or have been professors.

The Theory of Blackjack by Prof. Peter A. Griffin

Repeat Until Rich by Josh Axelrad (Reviewed in March in the New York Times)

Blackjack: A Professional Reference, the Encyclopedia of Casino Twenty-One by Michael Dalton

The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic by Dr. Richard Arnold Epstein

The Doctrine of Chances: Probabilistic Aspects of Gambling By Dr. Stewart N. Ethier

Finding the edge: mathematical analysis of casino games By Dr. Olaf Vancura, Dr. Judy A. Cornelius, Dr. William R. Eadington

Burning the Tables in Las Vegas by Ian Andersen

Professional Blcakjack by Dr. Stanford Wong

Risk and Reward: The Science of Casino Blackjack by Dr. N. Richard Werthamer

Knock-Out Blackjack by Dr. Olaf Vancura, Ken Fuchs

Basic Blackjack by Dr. Stanford Wong

The Blackjack Zone by Dr. Eliot Jacobsen

Legends of Blackjack by Kevin Blackwood and Larry Barker

Play Blackjack Like the Pros by Kevin Blackwood

Blackjack autumn: a true tale of life, death, and splitting tens by Barry Meadow

Blackjack: Play Like the Pros by John Bukofsky

Frugal Video Poker by Jean Scott

Dynamic Blackjack by Dr. Richard Reid

Blackjack Blueprint by Rick Blaine

Blackbelt in Blackjack by Arnold Snyder

Blackjack Diary by Stuart Perry

Beyond Counting by Dr. James Grosjean

Hollywood Blackjack by Dave Stann

The Pro's Guide to Spanish 21 and Australian Pontoon by Katarina Walker

Bootlegger's 200 proof blackjack by Mike Turner

You've Got Heat by Barfarkel

Mensa Guide to Casino Gambling: Winning Ways by Andrew Brisman

Silver Fox Blackjack System by Ralph Stricker

Get the Edge at Blackjack by John May

Another few that briefly acknowledge Schlesinger:

Gambling 102: The Best Stratgies for All Casino Games by Michael Shackleford

Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth

Blackjack for Blood by Bryce Carlson

Extra Stuff by Dr. Peter Griffin

Blackjack Essays by Mason Malmuth

Gambling for Winners: Your Hard-Headed, No B.S. Guide to Gaming by Richard Stooker

Fundamentals of "21" by Mason Malmuth, Lynne Loomis

Objective3000 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now give us all of the links and/or page numbers for these and all of the specific quotations that establish notability. You can even start adding them to the article and improving it now, before the AfD closes. See how easy it is? I'll even throw in some archived newspaper articles free of charge [8] Who knows--if you do a good enough job on the article, you might even get me and a few others to change our votes. Qworty (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easy? There are 38 books here. You asked for sources. I gave you sources. Now you want links, page numbers and quotes. And what will you demand after that? Your comments clearly indicate disdain for the subject area. I have work I have to do. I didn't add this article. I just think it is a poor nomination for removal.Objective3000 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) After that, I will demand that the article be kept. You must assume good faith. I don't have feelings one way or another about the subject matter. I didn't add the article either, and I have work to do too. This is an all-volunteer project. If you believe the article should be saved, then present the documentation that will save it, and it will be saved. If you have 38 quotes with links and/or page numbers, the article will be a slam-dunk KEEP. Hell, five good ones would do the trick. Qworty (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might reread WP:AOBF:). I will assume good faith and give you a half-dozen, since you requested five. I will include publisher info as you have criticized a publisher.

Repeat Until Rich: A Professional Card Counter's Chronicle of the Blackjack Wars By Josh Axelrad. Penguin Press (the largest trade book publisher in the world, overtaking Random House in 2009 according to Wikipedia.) "Throughout my career and in preparing these pages I drew on the research and writings of Ed Thorp, Arnold Snyder, Stanford Wong, Don Schlesinger, James Grosjean, and Ken Uston."

The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic by Dr. Richard Arnold Epstein. Published by Academic Press, part of Reed Elsevier, a global publisher and information provider,listed on several of the world's major stock exchanges according to Wikipedia. In the index, Don Schlesinger is reffed on pages 267-268, 271-273, and 275-276. A quote doesn't do this justice as these are long math discussions on optimal betting theory and Kelly Criterion, including references to the Illustrious 18 and SCORE (Standard Comparison Of Risk and Expectation) two terms coined by Schlesinger and formulae difficult to render.

The Doctrine of Chances: Probabilistic Aspects of Gambling By Prof. Stewart N. Ethier Publisher: Springer Science+Business Media. With 37,000 titles, Springer is a global publishing company which publishes books, e-books and peer-reviewed journals in science, technical and medical (STM) publishing according to Wikipedia. Numerous refs. The index shows Schlesinger on pages viii, 239, 682-684, 686, 687. You can find the quotes on Google Books.

Risk and Reward: The Science of Casino Blackjack by Dr. N. Richard Werthamer. Publisher is also Springer. Google books shows Schlesinger mentioned on pages 65, 84, 35, vi, 97, 66, 128, and 89.

Knock-Out Blackjack by Dr. Olaf Vancura, Ken Fuchs. Huntington Press. The index shows Schlesinger refs on pages 15, 82, 142, 155, 156. The first ref is in the Historical Perspective chapter: "In 1986, Don Schlesinger (ref to a magazine article) was the first to exhaustively evaluate the relative merits of memorizing the card-counting entries associated with each of the many possible strategic plays...." I believe the other quotes can be found in Google Books.

Play Blackjack Like the Pros by Kevin Blackwood. Publisher: HarperCollins. HarperCollins dates back to 1819 according to Wikipedia. The index shows refs to Schlesinger on pages 68, 104, 147. Sample quote: "The biggest reason to form a blackjack team lies in increased yield. Don Schlesinger calculated that adding one spotter can increase your profits by 76 percent and two spotters can potentially push it up by 132 percent."

Objective3000 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Objective3000's evidence should be compelling to the critics here. Within the blackjack world Schlesinger's notability wouldn't seriously be questioned in the manner we've seen -- not that there's anything wrong with questioning it. That said, the article as written doesn't make the strongest case possible for its own inclusion and could stand to be wholly redone. Note to self, Objective3000 or anyone else who cares.Paleoriffic (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changing vote to Keep based on Objective3000's sources. Somebody should now work them into the article. Qworty (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" by nominator. Objective3000 has really done good work here. I concur that the information ought to be worked into the article, but listing it here is enough to make me reverse my position, too. (I'm not "withdrawing" the nomination, as I feel that would be inappropriate since there is still at least one "delete" !vote standing, but I am most definitely changing my recommendation from "delete" to "keep".) Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would likely be willing to change my !vote allowing you to withdraw once the information is incorporated into the article so I can see how much of the article's content is actually properly sourced. I'm still a bit worried that only the third paragraph can be well sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the top of WP:AfD: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." So, tag the article.Objective3000 (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to tag the article if its problems aren't fixed after the AfD closes (and a keep closure looks very likely at this point). I'd be happier if the problems were fixed with as much energy as has already gone into finding the sources here, so that I can withdraw my delete !vote and the AfD can close sooner. But if you think I'm keeping it a delete for now out of pique that the article isn't being fixed more quickly, you're misunderstanding: I'm keeping it a delete for now because until the sources are actually used as sources, it's difficult for me to tell how much the article really passes WP:V, and whether the part that passes is detailed enough to justify keeping the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Clare's Nephilim Family Tree[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced list of characters that is mostly redundant to List of The Mortal Instruments characters. Most of what is listed here is trivial, and I tried to redirect it to an article that actually contains information. At the very least this article needs to be moved if it isn't deleted or redirected. Still this is trivial with little to no chance of referencing via independent sources. AniMate 19:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree entirely with the nominator. Reyk _YO! 05:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Qworty (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kessler – Francis – Cardoza[edit]

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

No non-trivial sources found. Google asks if I meant "Cardozo" but that turns up no results at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the firm were still operating, and had some high-profile project, then we might find some notability - maybe. I don't see that, here, though. We have a defunct firm (closed 6 years ago) with no sourcing. The firm might bear mention in the articles for prominent projects, if a source supports it - but most of those projects are redlinks anyway, so that seems unlikely. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not even claimed, much less demonstrated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelito[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Kelly ^hi! 18:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a product, but a series of prototypes done by a fellow in Belgium. The article asserts that these are connected with commercial models now being produced, but there is no evidence to back it up. A google search showed a lot of blog and forum mentions, and not much else. Cute hamster though. Seaphoto^Talk 18:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly speedy}: unsourced article promoting prototype. Possible G11 candidate. No evidence of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep images: Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here, the images seem entirely useful in other articles. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The images are up for deletion (separately) because they are copied from a website, but are missing evidence of permission to do so. Peacock (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The products eventually developed from these types of prototypes may be notable, but I don't see evidence of notability for the prototypes themselves. Peacock (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Maday[edit]

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

This article covers a non-notable criminal. The notability criteria for criminals may be found on WP:PERP: "(1) The perpetrator is notable for something beyond the crime itself. (2) The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities... (3) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event." Robert Maday has not received news coverage for a while; the coverage died down a few days after the crime took place. Furthermore, to my knowledge there was no notable victim. Edge3 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per references, per re-arrest. notoriety.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PERP. nothing special about his crimes, his rearrest adds nothing to his notability. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. There are many criminals who have had similar notoriety, but they're not necessarily notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Edge3 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speculations.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is the point of the above comment?LibStar (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmm?--BabbaQ (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have relatively inclusive standards for major criminals, but this not really major. The only possibly significant event is the escaper in 2009, and I think NOT NEWS is applicable here. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What elements of WP:PERP does this guy fulfill to end-around the GNG? A glance at Google News shows nothing before the major press flood and almost nothing thereafter; two articles in local papers about his sentencing in April, and ironically enough, an article in a local paper in January discussing the layoff of several policemen with the statement that locals already seemed to have forgotten Maday's fugitive flight. Ravenswing 14:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to University of South Florida St. Petersburg. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Crow's Nest (University of South Florida St. Petersburg)[edit]

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

I would think that most university newspapers are not notable enough to have their own articles. Plus, the relevant content is already at University of South Florida St. Petersburg. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to a technical glitch, this article was never listed. Forgetting it was listed, I redirected to University of Saint Petersburg. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as merged. The paragraph in the UOSF article handles it quite adequately. Seaphoto^Talk 18:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

André Nigri[edit]

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

Nothing worthy of inclusion per WP:AUTHOR. JaGa^talk 17:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant news coverage. Feezo (Talk) 07:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. Nothing here fulfills WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreferenced BLP, unmentioned in article on Adoniran Barbosa (whose biography is purported to be the topic's main claim to fame), and no other evidence that the topic meets WP:AUTHOR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. "Keep" in the sense of "not delete". There is no consensus about whether this should remain a standalone article or merged elsewhere, but that can be determined via the process described at Help:Merging. Sandstein 10:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Miscavige Hill[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)).

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

Not-notable Scientologist. Other than being the niece of current church leader, she seems to have a typical bio of someone whose left the religion and spoken against it. Might be worth mentioning in an article about Scientology as an example (although there are dozens of other possibilities) but not notable in her own right. Sources generally record what's she's said not who she is.

We don't need to document every ex-scientologist or critic of Scientology to make some ideological point. Scott Mac 17:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with you that we don't need to document all of those who are escaping, Marty Rahtbun's blog discusses several a week, but Jenna is one of the more serious fracture points of the last ten years. The formation of ex Scientology kids and the interview on ABC were newsworthy events. The story of her failing to get law enforcement to do a "welfare check" on her long missing aunt may be bigger.

Number of hits on Google has to be taken with a grain of salt, but there are 47,000 of them for "Jenna Miscavige Hill" -wikipedia. That's three times as many as Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder get who definitely belong on Wikipedia. (She gets about 1/3 as many hits in Google news). You can still be a significant player even if you are young and female. Keith Henson (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge with David Miscavige Article has 11 references from 7 different WP:RS with only one primary source represented. This fulfilled the requirement that the subject have multiple reliable sources intellectually independent from each other and the subject. Now I know that these references need to be incorporated into the body of the article, but that should be easily accomplished. Also being related to a Scientologist is not in itself notable, but she is related to the leader of Scientology and has become a very vocal opponent and created an organization to fight against her very notable uncle. Because of this I am unclear what policy Scott Mac believes she does not fulfill.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources are about Scientology using her as an example. They are not really biographical. An article does not need to violate a policy for us to judge the subject not to be notable.--Scott Mac 19:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, that is a better explanation on the why. So I am going to change my vote to merge because in my keep argument I do mention that her relation is one of the reasons she is notable. Since as you say the sources only mention her biographically in relation to Davie she should probably be merged with that article.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I am a anti-scientology campaigner. Scott Mac's claim that sources are not biographical is not factual. The ABC Nightline episode from April 2008 documents her life from early childhood into her current life. I am not a wikipedian, so I don't know the offial notability guidelines, but a half hour portrait by one of the major networks should qualify, doens't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.221.167 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC) — 85.147.221.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Scientology controversies - I don't see quite enough to justify a stand alone article - she got a lot of attention after an appearance on Nightline, but because of her connection to the leader of Scientology it is worth a section in the more general article. Seaphoto^Talk 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how she is a controversy.--Scott Mac 19:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, being an Apostate is not really notable neither is running a counter movement website. Is not really a "controversy" we have to remember WP:NOTSCANDAL. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your points, perhaps the best place would be Criticism of Scientology, if we had such an article (such as Criticism of Judaism and Criticism of the Catholic Church. That topic is directed to Scientology controversies, which is why I recommended that. Merging with the article on her father would be a good compromise. Seaphoto^Talk 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I'm a former CofS member and early ARS member. On Jenna, her father has no Wikipedia entry as he's not notable. I don't think she should be merged with her uncle (David Miscavige). I think that ESK really is a notable web site, but Jenna isn't, imho, notable on her own at the moment. She was active in speaking out in early 2008, but seems to have largely gone about her life since then. That said, I think there really is genuine controversy here because of the mis-treatment of children that some of the ex-Sea Org kids have brought to light. So I think that the content on this page should go somewhere, and the Scientology Controversies page is probably as good a place as any. Deirdresm (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)— Deirdresm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with David Miscavige? I don't think that this article has long-lasting notability. Karppinen (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC):[reply]
Delete ~~or merge~~ Individual is not notable other than being a relative of David Miscavige as the ole saying goes Notability is not inherited. I can't support a merge, as We dont need to list a member of the family outside Nuclear family. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Exscientologykids.com its a viable article where we can streamline content for the related Bios. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I am a anti-scientology campaigner. The fact that she happens to be a niece of the current leader, is indeed not noteworthy for WP. But ABC nightline made a half hour portrait of her. Reason they picked her, and not any other ex-Scientologyists, is because of her family relations. But I fail to see how that should be a reason for delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.221.167 (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC) — 85.147.221.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge to David Miscavige. He is notable. There's arguably enough here to make her notable but it is probably better to merge to the main article on David who is unambiguously notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the notability is connected, I'd normally remove mentions of a niece as irrelevant to anyone's bio. If this is merged, there's a large chance it will soon be edited out.--Scott Mac 10:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a connected notability regarding the shared connection and history in regards to scientology, but it seems like a sentence or two mention would be sufficient. I agree that all of the content probably shouldn't be in an article about him. Unfortunately, I just don't see enough content for a separate article about her. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 204.50.133.128 (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very, very important There are so few relatives of the elusive David Miscavige who have had the courage to speak out. She has given important info regarding systematic child abuse in the Scientology Organisation Zoara2010 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important to whom? Being a relative of an "elusive" person, and being courageous, are not reasons for Wikipedia to do anything.--Scott Mac 19:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Exscientologykids.com*Delete - having a few citations isn't a gold star reason to have a Wikipedia BLP, she isn't actually a notable person, she is just attached to Scientology, a subject of which is already unduly bloated at wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hate to say it, but this lady seems to be notable , as she's received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - Village Voice, ABC News, New York Post, etc. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above may seem overly simplistic, but I think it's a valid point. In addition, I'm surprised Cirt hasn't turned up yet! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that there isn't an Ex Scn Kids article. If this one does get deleted, we could do one on ESK (we should anyway), move the material about the three founders there and redirect their names to that article.

BTW Scott, I don't see how your claim of "not involved" re the cult holds up given what you have been doing. "Apostate" is a smear used by paid academics to attack critics which you used in reference to Jesse Prince. Is that a violation of BLP in itself? And you created a scn related category. Keith Henson (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've made a very bare bones article on Exscientologykids.com. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Panyd, I think it would helpful, just as a general practice, if you linked to online sources where they are available. You seem to be asserting by the creation of this article that the website itself is notable, yet it may receive only passing mention in the sources you cite. Merging this BLP to an article about the website is only a useful option if the article has any chance of remaining. Does it have any significant coverage? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources I cited have at least 2 paragraphs on the website with 3 having more than that/the website as the main subject. Unfortunately I got the sources from a private database (Lexis Nexis) so I can't link to the articles but I can include quotes if you would like. I don't do it as default because of feedback I've received from other editors. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable since she "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Only notable with respect to Scientology rationales for deletion are specious, since any notable person could be considered to derive their notability from something. Chester Markel (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My, my. The Jesse Prince link turned red. The page was up for deletion 4 days right after Christmas (Dec 26 to Jan 1 and deleted. I note that none of the people who are interested in the topic had a chance to comment. Isn't that jumping the gun? Can this be challenged? Keith Henson (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but the article needs a lot of work. From what I can tell, notability is substantiated through multiple reliable sources, so we've got that covered. However, as this is a BLP, work needs to be undertaken as soon as possible to place as many of those reliable sources as possible into inline citations in order to demonstrate exactly what comes from where, because that is currently a little murky and needs to be cleared up. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken some initiative on this - there are now some inline citations. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you believe that this is an appropriate source for a BLP? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was an interesting situation. It was sourced to a New York Post article, which was also listed as a source. In the process of going through sources, I discovered the NYP source later, and substituted that for the one you mention. It's the exact same article, but the NYP is the original source. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you believe that the gossip section of the New York Post is an appropriate source for a BLP? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It depends. A lot of the time, yes.

- - - - BTW, People might want to look at a rather similar deletion of Jesse Prince. 20:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC) - (comment from User :Hkhenson - added by Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep the ABC nightline interview in proper context, presumably Scientology controversies. Disclosure: I am an anti-Scientology campaigner. I feel strongly in particular about the ABC nightline portrait being preserved on wikipedia as it documents life and treatment of teens in the sea org. The best context may be Scientology controversies, as there are other primary sources documenting similar experiences. I noticed that such a section is currently not included in this page. I don't think a merge with her uncles page provides a good context. 85.147.221.167 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Exscientologykids.com. No notability except for her involvement with that group.Griswaldo (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how your argument wouldn't support merging articles about most notable people, insofar as their notability would relate to their activities touching on particular subject matters. Chester Markel (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Notable per WP:GNG as shown above by several editors. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she is notable. My reasons for this opinion are covered above so not going to list them all. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 04:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most certainly satisfies WP:NOTE, significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - lots of ongoing coverage, but some of that is from less-than-reliable scandal sources such as the New York Post. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Exscientologykids.com --JN 466 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think i like the idea of a merge with Exscientologykids.com...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exscientologykids.com is headed towards a keep at this point. Hill's notability is largely tied directly to the website & its actions, so her short bio can go there. — Scientizzle 20:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As nom, I'd be content with a merge to Exscientologykids.com--Scott Mac 20:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lila Shaara[edit]

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

Non-notable. No references and a google search turns up very little: an article in a local paper is the only thing that looks like a RS, and does not on its own satisfy WP:SIGCOV. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable author, even the Random House website doesn't have much to say about her at this time. Seaphoto^Talk 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Seaphoto, et al. The usual caveat applies, though - if the subject comes up with a notable work, and if such generates sources about the subject, then we may end up revisiting this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. DThomsen8 (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. withdrawal by nominator Blurpeace 03:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Greenbaum[edit]

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

Article does not pass filmmaker notability guidelines; not sufficient for an unsourced BLP since last year. Blurpeace 16:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If sources become available, or if the subject completes a project and gains some notability, we may wish to revisit this one; for now, though, delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO through 6 award wins, and meeting WP:GNG as a filmmaker with coverage in multiple reliable sources from 2002 through 2009.[9] Article needs expansion and sourcing, but such appears do-able through regular editing, and it needing to be done is a reason to do it... and not to delete an article on a notable individual in its lack. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already Over[edit]

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

Clear failure of WP:NSONG: "It is their lowest-charting single, peaking at a lowly #174 and has received hardly any rock radio airplay". No signficant independent coverage to assert notability. I42 (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 17:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even as the article's creator, I have to admit it is not noteworthy at all. Does not deserve its own article. CFuller (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agreed, notability is not present. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that it was released as a single is already mentioned at the associated album article, and that's enough. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation (WP:CSD#G12) of his faculty profile at UTM. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Raffaelli[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP about a professor with some publication (incl. one book), but notability seems limited at best. Googling to find his affiliation produced dead links. Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject is actually an assistant professor rather than a professor as previously claimed in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus is that the notability of the subject has not been convincingly established. Sandstein 10:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dal Bahadur Thapa[edit]

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

I tried sticking improvement tags on, they were removed without the needed improvement. So now it's time for a full deletion debate.

I see no indication of notability here. Just being a Freedom Fighter somewhere does not confer notability. The subject is mentioned in the given references, but generally only in lists of such freedom fighters. None of the articles appear to be about the subject himself. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks well sourced and has references. Rabbabodrool (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the four citation needed tags? Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't get the logic of the deletion nomination. If the correct thing to do with this article on December 7 was to tag it for improvement, rather than deletion, then what changed over the next 12 days? The removal of tags by an editor is (if incorrect) a behavioural issue, and makes no difference to the suitability or not of this subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I use the tags to give an article a chance, short of a deletion debate. If the tags are removed, then the author is declining that chance. I'm not going to edit war to keep a few tags on an article. At that point, I made a look through the "sources" that had been added, and IMHO found them lacking. So the author has tried to add sources, and the best that he appears to be able to come up with are lacking. And he does not want the tags to remain to alert others to the lack. Given all this, and that the article still lacked a credible claim to notability as far as I could see, the logical next step to me was AFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: if nothing else, the cited (but not footnoted) referenceCamalina Kiran, Pravana : Sikkim Perspective and Vision - 2003 - pp 353 seems to be a really solid source that gives far more than just a passing mention, giving birthdate, specific details of his imprisonment and alignment with Subhas Chandras Bose, etc. I would imagine that a slightly more thorough search would turn up even more info. Also probably has notability well beyond his immediate verifiability due to the slowness of Indian RS's coming online, but even for the meantime I'd vote keep even just based on that one reference. Needs major copyedit, but that's no cause for deletion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - IMO the nominator is correct. Currently the way this article is written makes it difficult to determine the subject's notablity and on face value a Captain in the anti-colonial Indian National Army (which was quite large) hardly seems notable to me. Likewise despite having a couple of references the article is clearly poorly cited and lacks reliable sources. This indicates to me that the subject probably lacks significant independent coverage and may therefore fail the notability guidelines in WP:MILMOS/N. My limited search on Google Books found nothing that could be added. Of course if by some chance the article is re-written to demonstrate notability (and more references provided to support it) I would be happy to change my vote. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'd say that some of his notability comes from being among the few INA officers actually brought to formal trial and executed. Plenty were summarily executed in Burma during the war, and the big courts-martial followed the war (most of them acquitted as I recall), so to be an officer actually tried for "waging against the King" and duly executed seems a reasonably uncommon distinction. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed if this can be added to the article with a citation that would go some way towards establishing notablity. If however the subject doesn't have significant independent coverage in reliable sources he is still not notable IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is the primary current concern that the Sikkim book doesn't count as significant coverage? It's certainly independent and reliable. I agree that the other "sources" where Thapa is just mentioned as a name among many are not WP significant, but the Sikkim book has several paragraphs outlining a good number of the basic important facts of his bio. So far as "if this can be added to the article", did you mean some clearer statement that "very few INA officers were executed after formal proceedings in India vice summarily", or just clearer evidence that he was executed? I've glanced briefly, but haven't offhand noticed any clear data on the number of INA formally tried prior to war's-end (when most were pardoned). I'm relatively sure it happened rarely (perhaps why it's not jumping out from books). Give me a handle on what you're thinking would help sway you over and I can glance around for it this evening perhaps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes what I meant was that if you could add the fact that he was one of the few hung rather than executed in the field that would help (with a reference of course). Re Sikkim: firstly from the limited amount available on Google Books the reference refers to Dal Bahadur Giri (is this the same person as Dal Bahadur Thapa?) it then refers to a Capt Dal Bahadur Thapa. Even if it is the same individual he is only mentioned twice on a single page (AFAIK from Google Books) and it doesn't make it clear what Thapa's role was. It does say that Dal Bahadur Giri "spearheaded the freedom movement in the hills" along with another, Bhagatbir Lama. Such confusion aside I don't think that a minor reference in a single book constitutes significant independent coverage. Certainly it could be used but IMO its not enough on its own. I'm not saying that this information should not be on wikipedia, but it doesn't seem like there is enough material to justify an article on the individual himself. Perhaps it could be included in the Indian National Army article or some other article dealing with anti-colonial activities in India etc. As a project we have deleted many other similar biographies for the same reason. Anotherclown (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: currently does not demonstrate significant coverage per the WP:GNG. If this can be established, though, I have no dramas with keeping it. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SOLDIER & WP:BIO, bio specifically because neither of the current two references has the subject as the primary focus of what is being written. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO arguments seem to carry the day here. There is some interest in reconfiguring/retitling this as a different list, but I'm not seeing any consensus on how exactly that should be done or even if it's desirable. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of women novelists before Jane Austen[edit]

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

This rather arbitrary criterion fails WP:SALAT. Austen (while a superlative writer) did not immediately and radically revolutionize how women novelists went about their business. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most female novelists notable enough to be included in this list already have their own pages. This list would best be merged with the Jane Austen main page, but probably shouldn't be a stand-alone page. Slayer (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No reason at all to merge this with Jane Austen. The only connection to her is that, for persons who consider Austen to be the first female novelist in history, there there was a book called Mothers of the Novel: 100 good women writers before Jane Austen that mentioned novels that were written by females prior to Sense and Sensibility in 1811. Perhaps the article can survive by being about the book, assuming it was notable; or, if not that, someone can make a "List of 18th century women writers" and a "List of 19th century women writers". I agree with Erpert that this is an indiscriminate list of information; yet I'd hate to see the information lost simply because it had been in a slap dash list with a silly title. All the red links indicate that there are a lot of overlooked women authors who aren't in a category because there's no article for them. Mandsford 18:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever is done, it would be a bad mistake to merge this with the Jane Austin article. I can't think of the relevant policy, sadly! Thincat (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or possibly Delete: I created the article when there wasn't the WP coverage there now is on many early women novelists, and after reading Mothers of the Novel - a pioneering, but now dated study. But I have no special attachment to it now, beyond the redlinks which I've gathered onto User:Dsp13/Redlinks#Early women novelists. I agree with Mandsford's comments: a list of early women novelists could be useful, but I agree that it's silly to name the page by reference to Jane Austen.Dsp13 (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like List of women novelists prior to the 19th century or delete. Kaldari (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are already List of early-modern women playwrights (UK) and List of early-modern women poets (UK) for those active before 1800, so I suppose List of early-modern women novelists (UK) would fit in, though I'm not exactly crazy about those clunky titles. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - merger with Jane Austen makes no sense. (In the meantime, it might be worth looking through the list to remove what doesn't make chronological sense - for some reason Harriet Vaughan Cheney was on it, although she published her first work in 1820, not only post-early-modern but post-Austen!) Roscelese (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, the article points up that we don't have pages for these women writers who were among the 100 profiled in Dale Spender's book: Elizabeth Boyd, Sophie Briscoe, Indiana Brooks, Elizabeth Byron (Strutt), Lady Mary Champion de Crespigny, Mary Charlton, Harriet Chilcot, Maria Susanna Cooper, Helen Craik, Anne Dawe, Anne Eden, E.M. Foster, Anne Fuller, Phoebe Gibbes, Mrs A. Gomershall, Susannah Minifie Gunning, Lady Mary Hamilton, Mary Ann Hanway, Jane Harvey, M. (Harley) Hugill, Maria Hunter, Susanna Keir, Sophia King, Sarah Lansdell, Mary Latter, Charlotte MacCarthy, Anna Maria Mackenzie, Jean Marishall, Eliza Matthews, Anna Meades, Margaret Minifie, Elizabeth Norman, Charlotte Palmer, Mary Elizabeth Parker, Catherine Parry, Eliza Phelp Parsons, Susanna Pearson, M. Peddle, Arabella Plantin, Elizabeth Purbeck, Jane Purbeck, Mary Anne Radcliffe, Elizabeth Ryves, Charlotte Sanders, Ann Emelinda Skinn, Eleanor Sleath, Catherine Smith, Elizabeth Isabella Spence, Sarah Emma Spencer, Augusta Amelia Stuart, Jane Timbury, Elizabeth Tomlins, Sarah Scudgell Wilkinson, Mary Julia Young, and some identified only as "Mrs. Burke", "Mrs. Carver", "Mrs. Howell", "Mrs. Johnson", "Mrs. Martin", "Miss Taylor", and "Mrs. A. Woodfin". Perhaps some of them were not notable in their own time; libraries are filled with books by authors who don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Some of them may not have received "significant critical attention" (WP:AUTHOR, 4c) beyond the judgment by Spender that they were "good". However, I'd hope that the names would remain somewhere long enough that they can get that type of evaluation. Mandsford 03:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that we do have pages on a few of them under slightly different names ("Harriet Cheney" would have shown up on your list of broken links, because the article exists as "Harriet Vaughan Cheney," while Catherine Smith is under "Catherine Smith (novelist).") Roscelese (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to "before 1800", also adding "in English" as the current name magnificently assumes there are no other languages! Don't merge to JA - that's a useless idea. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List subjects united only by publishing before an arbitrary date. Useful as a worklist, but Dsp13 has that covered. --Danger (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: quite nonsensical inclusion criteria. If necessary, preserve content by moving/substituting/merging with lists with a chronological criteria. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep in some form - agree with comments above regarding the need for better parameters - this list just helped me find an author whose name I couldn't remember. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.162.153 (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inclusion criteria just don't add up to make an encyclopedic list here. No objection to an article on the book it comes from, but that would probably be better written from scratch. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Criteria is too arbitrary. KimChee (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary list. Spatulli (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of women novelists. Lists are useful: a general list of women novelists requires no seemingly-arbitrary inclusion criteria (such as era of publication), can still populate Category:Lists of novelists & Category:Lists of women writers, and can serve as a the formation ground for future articles. — Scientizzle 20:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the inclusion criteria are arbitrary, and in addition, this is essentially a list of English women novelists before Jane Austen, which makes even less sense. Allow for restoration as part of a list of English women novelists. Sandstein 10:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Until We Have Faces. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faceless (Red song)[edit]

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

Clear failure of WP:NSONG: a single which is unreleased, uncharted and has no significant independent coverage. (According to the article it is due for release soon, but that alone would not meet inclusion criteria.) Redirect to artist article seems appropriate but author refuses this, leaving delete the only other option. I42 (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSONG. Not substantial for it's own article. Appropriate for inclusion in article about album or artist. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 16:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Until We Have Faces (assuming that's notable; somewhat dubious sources being used there). It's not up to the author to refuse that option. The song may well meet notability guidelines once it's released, in which case it can be recreated / unredirected.--Beloved Freak 18:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Until We Have Faces. I'd say merge, but all the content within this article is already in the album's article. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness factor[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP seems to apply. As far as I can tell, this only one guy uses this. Note that there are other "goodness factors" out there, but Laithwaite's article is from 2009, so it's doubtful that the other goodness factors" are related. Perhaps the article just needs a complete rewrite rather than deletion, so I'm launching the debate here. Leaning towards delete for now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The deletion call seems to have been made in bad faith, the article is referenced to a reliable source, and there are other reliable sources that are trivial to find with google or google scholar that refer to it (although most of them seem to be behind a paywall- but when has that ever been a deletion matter?) The caller is essentially claiming that the article is entirely made up by Wikipedia's editor(s), but it's clearly not. And it's not even Laithewaite's article, he died in 1997 or so- it's from somebody using his goodness factor in a reliable source.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 00:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madeup says: "Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up. If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet been featured in reliable sources, please do not write about it in Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website or blog instead. If you do, don't try to write an article based on you or your friend's website. "- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 00:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This very clearly doesn't apply.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 00:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation index gives 163 hits, a lot of the top ones are by Laithwaite, but many are not: [10]- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 01:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reasonably well sourced and notable. May need to be renamed since there are multiple goodness factors in different fields. --Kkmurray (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah so it's based on a 1965 article (and not 2009 as I previously thought)... that would explain a lot of things. Switching to keep, but might as well continue with the debate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nominator has voted keep, no outstanding delete opinions. Courcelles 01:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Văn Minh Tiến[edit]

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

I do not think this person is notable enough to warrant an article. I cannot find any information about him (in English, I do not read Vietnamese) on the internet. It seems as if it was written by someone who knew him personally as there is lots of emotive language in the article. Also, it has not been improved for some time, so in my opinion should be deleted. Andy4226uk (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With nothing much to go on in English, this is tricky, but I'd say keep, at least initially unless someone who reads Vietnamese can tell us that there is not significant coverage of the man in the gnews hits, or that the news sources covering him aren't reliable. If the coverage is significant, and the sources are reliable (and if this not a case of WP:BLP1E), then I don't see a problem with notability. He appears to have been making headlines in Vietnamese newspapers for a span of at least 2 years. Looking at google translate, the sources are about the guy in our article. Sources in English are not a requirement (although it's easier to judge notability when they are in English!), and "emotive language" can be cleaned up. It desperately needs sources, but I don't see an issue with WP:N or WP:V, if someone that speaks Vietnamese can help out.--Beloved Freak 19:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per belovedfreak. definitly.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - OK, I am persuaded by belovedfreak's points. I just hope someone who reads Vietnamese reads this and can expand it a bit :). Andy4226uk (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone in Category:User vi might be able to help? From what I can tell, he seems to be a kind of real-life Batman!--Beloved Freak 13:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn. Has been userfied. AD 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important bus routes in Derbyshire[edit]

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

This is completely redundant to List of bus routes in Derbyshire, but the creator keeps on reverting the redirect. AD 14:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep semi-protect the article and redirect it to List of bus routes in Derbyshire Peter.C • talk 14:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I've been trying to do... AD 14:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So do it. An administrator exercising the deletion tool is entirely uninvolved in the process. This is Articles for deletion. This is not Big Hammer To Try To Win Edit Wars. If you want an ordinary editorial action, use the tools for it. If someone disagrees, discuss on the article talk pages. That's what they are there for. Don't bring things to Articles for deletion when deletion is not any part of what you want. Uncle G (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "That's what I've been trying to do...". This is clearly not worthy of an article and if the creator is unhappy with a redirect, it should be deleted. Please don't patronise me with bold text. 15:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
      - You need the boldface because the point clearly isn't sinking in. If the creator is unhappy with a redirect, then you two should talk on an article talk page. You have exactly zero edits to Talk:Important bus routes in Derbyshire. The deletion tool has nothing whatsoever to do with such resolution. AFD is not a big hammer for winning an edit dispute. Don't bring your edit disputes to Articles for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Rubbish, redirect is a perfectly acceptable outcome at AFD. Seriously, if I had posted there, do you honestly think anything productive would have happened, other than him and me disagreeing and getting nowhere? I think the article should be deleted, but I compromise and turn it into a reasonable redirect. The creator reverts, so now we are here. Do you have anything useful to say, Uncle G, or are you just here to lecture orders and patronise fellow editors? Because it seems the latter to me. AD 15:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of bus routes in Derbyshire, as who decides which routes are important? Stephenb (Talk) 14:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who's going to be searching for "Important bus routes in Derbyshire" who would be unable to find List of bus routes in Derbyshire without a redirect? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We use redirects to serve as aids in searching - and adding "Important" to "Bus routes in Derbyshire" doesn't do that. Besides, searching for "Important bus routes in Derbyshire" would come up with the "List of bus routes in Derbyshire" article anyway. Since it's not a likely search term, we don't need to redirect. Also, echoing the points above - AFD is not "Requests for Redirect". UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I have to admire the honesty of the one "keep" !voter for saying "yea it's not notable but keep it anyway per IAR". If somebody were to make a good logical argument for keeping an article that otherwise failed the relevant guideline(s) and it received some support then it should be given some weight but not for a BLP, sorry. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gersi Xhuti[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:IAR. While this person may have not appeared in a fully-professional league, I learnt something today. I don't want to write up some massive speech but that's the goal of Wikipedia. I remember Jimmy Wales saying something along the line of "Imagine a place where the sum of the world's knowledge was all together" (I'm sure those aren't the exact words but..). Anyways; IMO we should keep this article. --Addi hockey 10^e-mail 16:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if I was to write an interesting but completely trivial article - A day in the life of GiantSnowman's belly button fluff, for example - it would be beneficial to keep it? Giant Snowman 16:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This player has not achieved anything significant enough to warrant a get out of jail free card Spiderone 21:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's quite clearly not-notable. The Canadian Soccer League is not fully pro, and he has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NSPORTS (league is not fully professional), no reliable sourcing adducible from Google News/Books, WP:IAR claim not supported by any substantive reasoning (let alone factual substantiation). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Verification that the current Canadian Soccer League is not fully professional is based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Top level leagues which are not fully professional. The article subject does not qualify under WikiProject Football's guidelines for subject specific notability, and he does not qualify otherwise. Mandsford 00:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agustin de Medina[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ragan[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. The CSL is not fully pro, and there insufficient coverage for this player to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Mangwa[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Due to a lack of significant coverage, and that he has not appeared in a fully pro league, he fails both WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Mandsford 23:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cliff[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that he meets either relevant guideline. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete -- by a growing consensus -- as violating WP:ALLEGED and WP:FORK. No opinion on the merits of the allegations. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism[edit]

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

I'm sorry to nominate an article for deletion that it looks like someone has put a good bit of work into, but this article just does not seem to be on an encyclopedic topic. Even the title of the article is a violation of the MOS guideline WP:ALLEGED--who has asserted that Tablighi Jamaat is connected to terrorism? The article doesn't say. There is one reference, an article in the Middle Eastern Quarterly, that does indeed make such an assertion, but one reference from what our Wiki article on MEQ calls "a publication of an American conservative think tank" will not a neutral article on "Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism" make. The long list at the end of the article of "Terrorist suspects alleged to have links to Tablighi Jamaat" is WP:SYNTH. Tablighi Jamaat is a large movement; of course it will have some members who are convicted of crimes. Should we have an article on, say, "Anglicanism and allegations of drug-dealing," containing a list of all of the people who have ever belonged to an Anglican church and later been convicted of drug-dealing? I think this article should be deleted, since it's essentially a negative POV-fork of the main article on the movement. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRT the name -- I agree the article's basename should have been made clear it was addressing allegations.
1. When I started this article I started it under the name Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. Administrator User:Jossi arbitrarily renamed it.
2. A concern over an article's name is not grounds for deletion.
3. Due to Jossi's rename the previous (procedural) ((afd)) was obfuscated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. Geo Swan (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WRT comparisons to Anglicanism -- The nomination asks "Should we have an article on, say, 'Anglicanism and allegations of drug-dealing,' containing a list of all of the people who have ever belonged to an Anglican church and later been convicted of drug-dealing?" This is a straw argument. No one disputes that a very small minority of Anglicans have dealt drugs. But no one is suggesting that being an Anglican should automatically put an individual of being a drug-dealer or terrorist. Individuals are automatically falling under suspicion of ties to terrorism, in part, due to an alleged association to terrorism. For some of the Guantanamo captives the allegation of a tie to Tablighi Jamaat was the most serious allegation. Three Guantanamo captives died in custody on June 10, 2006. At the time the DoD claimed they were very dangerous men, committed terrorists. In September 2007, when the memos prepared for their review Boards were made public one of these men turned out to be one of the individuals for whom the most serious allegation was that he had a tie to the Tablighi Jamaat movement. Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GeoSwan for your thoughtful response. Regarding the points you've made, the name Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism has the same problem regarding the WP:ALLEGED guideline (who is making this allegation?). Regarding your second point, I'm puzzled by how "the allegation of a tie to Tablighi Jamaat" might have been "the most serious allegation" for some of the Guantanamo captives. Tablighi Jamaat is a large movement--for example according to the main wiki article on the topic, 40% of UK mosques are Tablighi Jamaat. So, I'm very skeptical that simply "having a tie" to Tablighi Jaamat would represent a "serious allegation." Also, my rationale for deletion is that this article is a negative content fork on the subject of Tablighi Jaamat. Thanks,CordeliaNaismith (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is making the allegations? Western security officials, security officials in Totalitarian Islamic countries, pundits who are suspicious of muslims, in general. The article was renamed to Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism by U.S intelligence about six months after it was created. IIRC it Jossi's name was restored following a discussion at requested moves. Geo Swan (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the suspicions an association with TJ trigger are puzzling. Nevertheless they do trigger those suspicions, in some quarters, as you can see from Mana Shaman Allabardi al Tabi's allegations memos, among others. I think, in his particular case, the TJ allegation was the one the DoD considered the most serious. Geo Swan (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced encyclopedic article on a notable aspect of TJ. adding all this info to main article would violate WP:UNDUE. I can see the concerns about the title and the use of word alleged but what the most appropriate title is needs to be discussed on the article talk page not in an AfD.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

Browsing down the first ten of fifteen references, I found several primary documents that would be useful for original research, a link to an outfit associated with Daniel Pipes, a Hindu Times editorial piece, and a couple of broken links. I also found a couple of articles stating "the TJ says it does not have ties to ***" which is odd, considering this is an article about allegations it does in fact have those ties.

I did not find an article from the NY Times or The Guardian, nor did I find a reference from a reputable scholar published on a university press. Perhaps I missed them. True, the Hindu Times is a big outfit, but someone could perhaps claim the Hindu Times is a Hindu newspaper rather than a Muslim one, and this fact affects their POV. If this is a noteworthy article, it would require only a couple of quality, mainstream references to justify the article's existence. I didn't happen to notice any.

But, even assuming there are a couple of good sources, still if the quality of the sources I looked at are any indication of the overall quality of the sources, then I would have to think there's probably not much inside the article that is verifiable. So even if the article is noteworthy, anyone who feels strongly about keeping it should also be willing to get the references up to Wikipedia standards, because it looks like an editor might take a couple of hours to go through and tag a large percentage of the content.

And actually, I don't have an opinion on whether there are noteworthy allegations, perhaps there are. But judging from what I can see, it would be hard to know if the allegations in the article are the same ones which are noteworthy. I suspect the article goes beyond what (presumably? allegedly?) is alleged in the mainstream press, or it would not be resorting to original research and going outside the mainstream for its sources.

Thank you, Cordelia Naismith, for bringing this up. You are %100 on the mark.

Aquib (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really what do these references from NY times have to say about TJ [11], [12]. And maybe this source is not reliable either [13]. what quality of sources are you looking for if you think NYT is not reliable ???--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the useful links. The mainstream allegation in them is TJ, while staunchly nonpolitical and nonviolent, may be subject to exploitation or manipulation by terrorists. The terrorists may use the organization for shelter and travel, without TJ's knowledge.

The second sentence of the Wikipedia article in question states In recent years, allegations and concerns have risen about whether, or how much, the organization is linked to Islamic terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda. I see no suggestions of linkage between TJ and the terrorists in the mainstream material you have provided, unless you are suggesting linkage as one might link airports and airlines to terrorists. So the second sentence of the WP article in question goes beyond the bounds of the mainstream material you provided. The second sentence is also sourced from the Middle East Quarterly, which is a conservative think tank rather than a mainstream news outlet. -Aquib (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there are no "allegations of terrorism" in the mainstream sources, so the title of the article is a misrepresentation itself. Aquib (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really ! this is what NYT says "During their weeklong preparations, the men stayed in Raiwind, the headquarters of Tablighi Jamaat, a Muslim missionary group often described by terrorism experts as the antechamber of Al Qaeda and the Taliban."[14], that TJ is a peaceful nonviolent movement is complete OR. the appropriate title can be discussed on the article talk page as I have suggested above.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antechamber is a somewhat imprecise term in this context, but your point is taken. So I assume we have mainstream reports of the targeting of TJ members for recruitment by terrorists, as well as the use of TJ facilities and identities in order to facilitate movement. All this without the knowledge of the TJ organization.

The article is not neutral or verifiable, and it contains significant amounts of original research. The section listing detainees and their visits to TJ facilities is only topical when viewed as original research implying duplicity on the part of TJ. The theme of TJ duplicity goes beyond the mainstream allegations of exploitation. The portion of its content acceptable according to Wikipedia's criteria belongs in the main article.

If the article were rewritten to Wikipedia's standards, it would be a stub.

Aquib (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one doing OR. NY times is a reliable source. here is another article which talks about accusations against TJ by both FBI and MI5[15]. The article is not neutral or verifiable ???? maybe madrassah times would be more neutral and verifiable.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good article. As in the NYT article you provided earlier, however, this Guardian article states the FBI and MI5 allegation is the targeting of TJ followers for recruitment by terrorists, there is no allegation of duplicity by TJ in this article.

Not sure why you are saying I disagree with your NYT articles, they are acceptable, they just don't allege duplicity by TJ itself. They weren't intended to. -Aquib (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

----

and here is another in depth study about TJ by Fund for Peace,[16] I quote "The TIJ resembles a revivalist movement more than a structured organization, but its secrecy and ties to Pakistan’s lawless frontier have caught the attention of counter-terrorism officials around the world—as has the tendency for the TIJ to surface on the periphery of numerous terrorism investigations."--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the Fund for Peace organization, but they use Alex Alexiev from the Middle East Quarterly Review repeatedly as a source of criticisms and accusations. As I mentioned earlier, MEQR is a neo-conservative publication associated with Daniel Pipes. This paper is not from a top-tier, mainstream source, as one would expect to be used when authoring Wikipedia articles on controversial topics. As important and controversial as this issue is, there should be adequate material available from the quality mainstream outlets and scholars published by university presses. Aquib (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

------

And you also might be interested in what Center for Security Policy has to say about them.[17]. Again I quote "The estimated 15,000 Tablighi missionaries reportedly active in the United States present a serious national security problem. At best, they and their proxy groups form a powerful proselytizing movement that preaches extremism and disdain for religious tolerance, democracy, and separation of church and state. At worst, they represent an Islamist fifth column that aids and abets terrorism. Contrary to their benign treatment by scholars and academics, Tablighi Jamaat has more to do with political sedition than with religion."--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not interested in this source either, according to its Wikipedia article, The CSP advocates neoconservative and Wilsonian policies based on a philosophy of "Peace through Strength". It lists Richard Perle as a notable member. It is clearly a partisan organization. Also, as was the case with the Fund for Peace paper you supplied, this paper is not from a top-tier news outlet or a peer reviewed academic source published on a university press.Aquib (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be interested in hearing anything negative about TJ but the fact remains per NYT and guardian they are under the scanners of intelligence agencies worldwide. MEQ is a scholarly journal albeit with a conservative focus. Just like NYT has a liberal bias. They both clearly meet WP criteria of RS as mentioned in WP:RS ande what they say merits attention . trying to suppress this info by getting article deleted when every Intelligence agency is paying attention to TJ ( for its ties to terrorists) reeks of an extreme POV.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are establishing a clear pattern by reviewing these sources. Mainstream sources do not report allegations, of complicity or duplicity in terrorism, on the part of TJ. Apparently some neo-conservative organizations do, and some partisan and/or less well known, perhaps less rigorously reviewed organizations have publicized those more serious allegations, but those sources are not usable according to Wikipedia content policies. If the more serious allegations were supported with evidence, this evidence would be in the top tier mainstream news outlets and peer reviewed academic sources. I am assuming no one alleges a conspiracy by academics and media outlets to suppress evidence in this matter.

The less serious allegation, that TJ is unwittingly susceptible to exploitation by terrorists for shelter and identity "cover", is well documented in the mainstream. The allegation that terrorists recruit susceptible TJ members is also well documented. Aquib (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, many in the mainstream are suggesting organizations such as TJ serve America's national security interests by channeling the lost and dispossessed into nonviolent, apolitical organizations.

No number of additional mainstream sources which do not mention the more serious allegations will prove the more serious allegations. No number of non-mainstream, non-peer reviewed or partisan sources will prove the more serious allegations. Original research, non-NPOV sources and non-verifiable material are not allowed in Wikipedia articles - especially when dealing with subjects as controversial as this.

We are not voting on whether we should change Wikipedia's core content policies.

Aquib (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies. NPOV is achieved not by using NPOV sources (there is no such thing, as all sources have a POV), but by reporting on all usable reliable sources. Disagreeing with a source's political position does not make it non-reliable. Also, MEQ is peer-reviewed. Bradycardia (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Bradycardia, thank you. The questions are whether MEQ's peer review process is acceptable according to Wikipedia's standards, and whether MEQ is a reliable source for WP articles regarding alleged terrorism. It appears these questions has been raised before, and I am willing to raise them again.

If the article's proponents wish to address the problems I have identified in the article, that would be helpful. Those defending the article as written will find their position tenuous in an objective forum.

Aquib (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I should not take credit for raising these questions. Thanks again, CordeliaNaismith.

Aquib (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and I suppose MI5 and FBI are not mainstream organizations. TJ is also banned in certain countries as a terrorist organization maybe those countries are not NPOV either[18]--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about the article, not our personal opinions on the subject of the article. We are currently discussing the reliability of sources, in particular, the Middle East Quarterly.Aquib (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this discussion in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard archive. The indication is Middle East Quarterly is controversial as a source and is the subject of disputes. I am putting up a new inquiry to try to get opinions from third parties not currently involved in this discussion. Aquib (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no we are discussing whether this article should be deleted or not. MEQ is just one small part of the argument. Anyway several countries have actually banned TJ. per Voice of Russia Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Krygystan are the countries where it is banned for "suspected connections with Terrorism & Al-qaeda".[19]. clearly these countries have gone beyond just allegations and have actually taken action to curb their activities.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These countries have gone beyond allegations? Has been anybody of this organization been charged or sentences for any acts of terrorism? People might want to have also a look at our policy WP:ALLEGED. IQinn (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Russia, Russia Today and Middle East Quarterly are all extremely controversial for sources, in terms of their reliability. Sources for this article's implications of duplicity or complicity by TJ itself simply are not available anywhere in the mainstream, or we would have seen them by now. -Aquib (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for talk pages where I can post notifications of this discussion would be appreciated. -Aquib (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — As pointed out by Aquib, some of the alleged links here are purely circumstantial, but some go beyond that, and overall, it seems worth reporting on them. This article is a subarticle of Tablighi Jamaat, so it's not a content fork. Some editors have expressed concerns about verifiability, so I'll point out that there are many reliable references from mainstream newspapers like the New York Times, The Guardian, etc. Bradycardia (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or to put Geo Swann's straw man refutation a different way: Yes, we should make an article on 'Anglicanism and allegations of drug-dealing,' anytime Anglicanism becomes equated with drug dealing, whether erroneously or accurately; and/or Anglicans from various countries are rounded up by another country and imprisoned, without habeas corpus legal representation or due process, on no basis other than their religion; and/or Anglican churches are prevented from being sited next to schools because obviously the Anglicans would sell dope to kids there. Check out the article; all those things or worse have happened to Tablighi Jamaat and its members. The claim that this connection is a coincidence due to a large sample population is either ill-informed to a degree unsuitable for a nominator or pure and unadulterated obfuscation. Anarchangel (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Tablighi_Jamaat article after cutting this material down to what can be supported by reliable secondary sources. Fladrif (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dubiously sourced POV-fork. Much of it is highly tendentious, ie the use of dubious primary sources such as from the military interogations trials and the subject is adequately covered in the main article. Doesn't even seem to be much worth merging.--Misarxist 10:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that, once this is cut down to size and limited to reliable secondary sources, there won't be much more to it than is already adequately covered in the main article. I concur that there won't be much left to merge, but there might be a sentence or two and a couple of sources to add as footnotes. This material definitely doesn't merit a separate article.Fladrif (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Misarxis, no objection to transfer credible information. IQinn (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tablighi Jamaat. Per Misarxist, there doesn't appear to be any good justification for this fork. --FormerIP (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile number portability[edit]

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

This article has had major issues ever since it first appeared, and they have never been addresses. Fundamentally, it is simply a statement of the obvious (mobile number portability is portability of mobile numbers, well, duh) and adds a pile of original research from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage in the Wall Street Journal for the US implementation is 2003 and how it would affect the economics of the industry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's support for a date in the US. Now how about reliable independent sources for the subject of "mobile number portability"? Nobody disputes it exists, but what we have here is a personal essay plus some primary sourced lists of dates, which violates core policy. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a concept that regulatory agencies pay a lot of attention to (e.g. OFCOM in the UK), and I'm sure there's legislation or other official sources to support this guidance. The article needs a major rewrite, and I suspect that the by-country listing of porting times is bit of a waste of time (apart from changing in real time). JFW | T@lk 19:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept as such is sufficiently notable, it's not original research per se. The article does need some cleanup. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep why delete? seems informative and accurate wle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlexxx (talk • contribs)
Strong keep: AfD is not, as the nom implies, some sort of stronger form of cleanup tag. This article includes useful information, even if the prose at the top needs work. Could probably re-write it in less time than this AfD process. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Bass[edit]

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

Non-notable Chiropractor and "Natural Hygiene" guru. Only main claim to notability is an unsourced assertion that he was once ordained as a Knignt of Malta. A google search doesn't turn up much on Dr. Bass besides his own website and references thereto, no articles from reliable sources. Zachlipton (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any reliable, secondary sources for this person. Wexcan Talk 14:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actual notability not asserted. JFW | T@lk 23:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any support for notability at Google News or Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghada Abdel Moneim[edit]

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

Self-promotional page written by the subject. All the references and external links are to self-published blogs and web sites and vague mentions of the subject on obscure Arabic language web sites and blogs. The ar.Wiki article used as a reference has been deleted FOUR times and remains deleted. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Kudpung (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I have tried to find sources for this article but was unable. Mo ainm~Talk 13:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned here. The Arabic language version have been deleted multiple times and recreated by the same author. I bet that both User:41.131.87.137 and User:Ghada abdel moneim have the same IP adress. Rafy talk 18:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I write and read Arabic and I check all links its OK and she is a famous person in Egypt and have a new theory in communication she also a philosopher, And they delete an Arabic page after many months only fore she is alive person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.131.87.137 (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Non notable Peter.C • talk 03:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that `s right . one of Arabic wiki editors (Mr Obayd) send me an email to tell me that, sorry we can not accept your bibliography until 50 years after your death!(Ghada abdel moneim (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Your user user page doesn't support your claim I'm afraid. Plus I can't spot a "Mr. Obayd" among other administrators. Rafy talk 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might seem much more sensible if it were a better translation. "smallest Arab woman to serve as" presumably means "First Arab woman..." ; "(brothers Grimm chosen's)" imust mean "selections from the Brothers Grimm" .

I think the more appropriate question is how was she able to translate whole books from English as stated in the article. Rafy talk 02:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

questions

It seems not to be true that the arWP in fact does not not accept bios of living people? I note they have 9798 articles in their Category:Living People in Google translation, many of whom are contemporary cultural figures notable for Arab literature, (what was said seems rather like a polite excuse, such as my occasional comment to schoolchildren, "When you are famous someone will write a biography about you" which is not literally the full rule. I notethey do have a page equivalent to Notability(people), Google translation Like here, some of the rules seem contradictory,especially about whether they are to be interpreted as ANDs or as ORs, but their approach to writers is interesting--it does not seem that she has met it. It would seem that any writer they have debated and accepted would meet our notable criteria also. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being an "almost" native speaker of Arabic I can assure you that those pages don't seem that contradictory at all when read in Arabic. BTW the Arabic version article was deleted four times because of notability issues[20][21] and for being an non-encyclopedic autobiography[22]. Rafy talk 02:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails by WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:BIO, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:AUTO, WP:SPA, to name a few. Qworty (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pagalavan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Forecast film, yet to be demonstrably notable and unlikely to be verifiable as notable in the near future as it has not started shooting, per WP:NFF. PROD quickly removed so raising for wider discussion. I note that this article was deleted 3 years ago for the same reasons. Fæ (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 09:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 09:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. Filming has not begun and the director is still looking for a producer. Can be recreated if filming begins.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, film still may not happen. no confirmation etc Universal Hero (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly nearer to reality than it was in 2007, but still fails WP:CRYSTAL. Interesting that the cameraman seems to be booked, but all the casting is not sorted. Probably easier to get actors... Peridon (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Ewing Mears[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete "noteworthy?". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Early American medical pioneer. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure what the rationale is for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A notable exponent of early American medicine. This was perhaps not clear in the revision nominated for deletion, however, it was presented in the sources cited. The article was 47 min. old at the time of this nomination. I too don't understand the nom. rationale. James Ewing Mears was probably a very bad surgeon. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was six minutes old when speedied. Remember we aren't voting on the condition of the article at any given time, all articles start as a sentence or two. The minimal due diligence before speedy deletion is to a Google search to see if the topic is notable, independent of how it appears in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of opinion, Richard; plenty of 'votes' at AfDs are based solely on the condition of an article and some editors don't bother to search for sources. I participated at AfDs where even presenting sources in the discussion wasn't enough for some editors. For me, that was absolutely crazy and illogical, but now I understand a bit more: they don't care about any potential, they want to see an improvement of an article. And that's legitimate, however unconstructive it appears to me. Personally, I agree with your approach. Complicated start of this article is an example of clueless and uncollaborative editing, or perhaps a mistake, I don't know. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and has numerous sources Peter.C • talk 14:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced, clearly someone who made important contributions to American medicine. Seaphoto^Talk 18:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nominated in good faith but no consensus to delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Wilson[edit]

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

Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) are candiditates for deletion.

WP:BIO The article fails the basic tenants of WP:BIO as the subject of this article has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, nor has been nominated for one several times. The subject of this article has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her specific field.

It is claimed that she is a media personality, but the only verifiable links provided suggest she is a newspaper reporter.The articles that are referenced were written about other people by her, not about her. The link provided at (http://www.vegafm.com.au/vega953) is not functional.

As a journalist, she doesn't meet any of the criteria required of Creative professionals. Ie, she is not a particularly well known or well respected journalist, or regarded widely by her peers. She is not known for originating a significnant new concept, theory or technique. Neither has she created a significant or well known work that has been the subject of a book, feature length film, or reviews.Her work has most definately not become a significant monument, been part of a signifianct exhibition, won significant cirtical attention, or is represented within the permanent collections of museums. Nor does she meet any of the criteria required for entertainers.She has had no significant roles in film or television. She has no large fan base. Nor has she mafe a unique, prolific or innovative contrubution to her field.

It is suggested in this article that she is notable because she is the partner of News Limited Chief Executive, John Hartigan. However, Relationships do not confer notability. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED#Notability_is_inherited)

WP:N It may be suggested that she is nonetheless notable, despite this. WP:N requires verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability.

The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

The evidence provided through links to her page do not show that she has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. The articles referenced were, in the main, written by her and were published in the herald sun. This is clearly self promotion, and is not objective evidence supporting a claim of notability. The link provided at (http://www.vegafm.com.au/vega953) is not functional.

WP:SELFPUB Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—

it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The material as used in this article violate clauses 1 and 5. Most of the references used in the article were written by the subject and as such, the article is primairliy based on these sources. Furthermore, the article is prima facie self serving.

WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.As such, content hosted on wikipedia is not for Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Given the nature of this article, and the fact that most of the references are written by the subject of the article, it is clear that it is a tool for self pormotion, and that WP:SOAPS has been violated.

Conclusion Given that WP:BIO, WP:N , WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOAPS have been vilated in this instance, I argue that it is in the interests of wikipedia to delete this page. JusticeSonic (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— JusticeSonic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It is very hard to accept good faith in this deletion nomination. User:JusticeSonic allegedly joined Wikipedia on 27 December 2010 [23] and within 20 minutes [24] had formed a comprehensive, knowledgeable argument for deletion. This is very suspicious, perhaps even malicious. That aside, Wilson has proved herself as a notable journalist in print, radio and television, as her article and references clearly indicate. She is not universally popular (one wonders what she did to upset JusticeSonic and his earlier Wikipedia identity?), but that does not detract from her eligibility for an article here. WWGB (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't appreciate the allegation you have made WWGB, and I would like to remind you that Wikipedia:BITE applies. I have made a number of edits before, however I hadn't needed to sign in to make those edits. In order to nominate an article for deletion, one has to create an account. I can assure you that I have nothing against Rebecca Wilson except for the fact that she is not notable. Her wikipedia entry reads like a resume, and if she was in fact notable, you wouldn't have to list the fact that she has worked with The Courier-Mail, Channel 10, ABC Television, The Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, the Adelaide Advertiser, Channel Seven and Foxtel. Wikipedia is not a resume, it is not a soapbox and it is not there to glorify nobodies. It is meant to be an encylopaedia.JusticeSonic (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable journalist. This reference, for example, reports on Wilson's journalism. StAnselm (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that she is a journalist does not make her a notable one. Ie, she is not a particularly well known or well respected journalist, or regarded widely by her peers. She is not known for originating a significnant new concept, theory or technique. Neither has she created a significant or well known work that has been the subject of a book, feature length film, or reviews.Her work has most definately not become a significant monument, been part of a signifianct exhibition, won significant cirtical attention, or is represented within the permanent collections of museums. Nor does she meet any of the criteria required for entertainers.She has had no significant roles in film or television. She has no large fan base. Nor has she mafe a unique, prolific or innovative contrubution to her field.JusticeSonic (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. She has had no significant roles in television? I guess you choose to overlook The Fat [25], 110% Tony Squires [26], Sunrise [27], The Footy Show [28], the Commonwealth Games [29] and the Olympic Games [30]? WWGB (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment Did she host any of these programs or was she a guest? Like I've said before, she is a journalist. Just not a particularly notable one. Her roles on television are not significant. If every hanger-on that wrote a column in an aussie newspaper and was able to get a guest spot on a television show was considered notable, wikipedia would devolve into myspace.JusticeSonic (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you had actually bothered to read any of the references I provided, you would realise that she had a regular co-hosting or contributing role on each of the programs, not merely a "guest spot" as you allude. Using terms like "hanger-on" to describe the subject of the article indicates a degree of pre-existing bias. WWGB (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, we judge on the merits of a person's body of work, of which there are plenty of sources listed, not the fact they have won awards or had films made about their work (most writers do not enter the business aiming for that goal). This reads like a nomination made to make a point by a single purpose account which has a rationale which is too long to be understood, much less can have the reasoning for deletion found within it. Article has long existed before her relationship was revealed, thus the NH rationale is invalidated, and nominator cites policies such as WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC which do not apply to the subject at all, and needs to learn to link to the proper rationales, as the Wikipedia Soap Opera Project doesn't apply here either. Nate • (chatter) 11:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment No need to be sorry. I respect everything you have to say, and am actually quite impressed by how cool wikipedia editors are :) I hope however that my argument isn't being ignored on the basis of the fact that I only just signed up for an account recently. As I said earlier, I have made a number of edits before, but hadn't needed to sign in. In order to nominate an article for deletion, I had to create an account. I'm not a serial wp:spa JusticeSonic (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources found by WWGB show that WP:ENT is met. could the nominator please explain how WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC apply here? also in all my years of WP this is the most longwinded nomination I've ever seen, even more suspicious coming as a first edit. it's as if the nominator has something personal against Rebecca Wilson. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are there. Comment Let's all AGF on the nom :)David Able (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources found above establish notability. Jenks24 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Photo HDR[edit]

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

Notability, looks like spam. Darxus (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article subject appears to have been substantially covered in a number of third-party sources, judging by the hits provided by the Google News and Book searches. This article doesn't appear to be THAT spammy, apart from the last sentence inviting readers to download the software (and that's easily fixed). Bettia (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Bettia's arguments. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. elektrik SHOOS 10:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news results are mostly in German and Spanish so I used Google translator. Popular Photography Magazine says its one of the most popular HDR Programs. [31] Other results to sort through, but it appears to be a very popular bit of software, so its notable by software standards. Dream Focus 18:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Spider-Man[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As with the Fictional history of Wolverine article, this article is nothing more than plot summaries presented in an in-universe style and thus violates WP:IN-U and WP:PLOT. Spider-Man’s history certainly is notable but this doesn’t do it justice as it doesn’t show the creative processes that went into developing the character and his universe. LittleJerry (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already. Last three AFDs were rife with promises that the article would be cleaned up, but it ain't happening. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In direct contrast to TenPoundHammer's assertion there was clean-up done to the article. It was cleaned up so well (following the 3rd nomination) that the cleaned up version was merged into the main Spider-Man article to replace the single paragraph that followed a link to the Fictional history article. I thought this article had been made into a redirect to that section in the main article. Spidey104 02:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for all the same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Green Goblin, which resulted in the deletion of that article. Like it, this and other "Fictional history of" articles that are written completely in-universe violate WP:IN-U, WP:PLOT and other policies / guidelines. The character background at Spider-Man, which properly includes milestones and contains third-party commentary from creators, critics, academics and historians, is sufficiently encyclopedic without becoming impenetrably minutiae-filled. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the reasons I gave in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Wolverine (2nd nomination). A "fictional history" is not encyclopedic; this is not The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. Leaving aside questions of what constitutes excessive plot detail, the in-universe perspective of the "fictional history" means that 1) real life publication history is obscured or ignored; 2) the roles and intentions of the character's creators and subsequent writers and artists are downplayed or ignored; 3) continuity errors are papered over or ignored; 4) retroactive continuity changes are treated as if they were always part of the narrative; 5) the actual contemporary setting of the works of fiction (e.g., a comic book published in the 1970s that takes place in the 1970s) is ignored in favor of a floating timeline that keeps the character ever young only by ignoring or contradicting elements of the prior works of fiction; 6) and story elements are weighed not based on their importance to the works of fiction that depict them but rather based on how such elements would be weighed if the character were a real person. All of which amounts to nothing useful at all. It's not a valid history in any sense; it's just current canon, or How Spider-Man and his backstory are depicted in Marvel Comics as of 2010, without being about that canon and how it developed in any meaningful way. And canon changes and will change again purely based on the whims of whomever the current editors and writers are. This and all other such "fictional histories" are irredeemable in their very conception, as well as execution, for all of these reasons. postdlf (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Targeting to the FCB in the parent article. For the reeason I had pointed out at the Green Goblin FH AFD. This is a masive plot dump. A massive plot dump that has been nominated before. A massive plot dump that has been nominated before and been defended as just needing to be "fixed through editing". A massive plot dump that has been nominated 3 times in the last 2 and 1/2 years and been defended as just needing to be "fixed through editing". A massive plot dump that has been nominated 3 times in the last 2 and 1/2 years and been promised to be "fixed through editing". A massive plot dump that has been nominated 3 times in the last 2 and 1/2 years and been retained through "No Consensus" and a promised to be "fixed through editing". Enough. The attemps to "fix the content through editing" have gone no where and this has moved to the point that this article is being maintained and expanded solely as a plot dump. Spider-Man has an appropriate FCB section - #Comic book character - to give the in-stoy jist of the character and the "high points". Redirecting at least gives editors a chance to see what can/should be moved off to one of the wikis that are specialized for this content. - J Greb (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My views on this have changed since the previous AfD. There was some initial effort to fix the article up, but I think its very nature prevents it from being possible to really make it into an acceptable Wikipedia entry. Certainly, and assuming they're not already in it, the most essential parts of the history can be added to the main article and leave the detailed stuff like this to fan sites. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 14:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's a Marvel Wiki article about Spider-Man that would surely love all this information. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 14:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a mind to the previous AFD where many claimed this article could be improved. It's time to pack it in. This is just a content fork of the main spiderman article. And we should delete this one for being only WP:PLOT, while keeping the main article that includes information that is WP:NOT#PLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Back in September, I re-raised the issue that this article was seriously lacking in a number of ways. I noted that it fundamentally failed core principles of this project. In response, I was told that policy allows us to ignore all rules, allows exceptions, allows common sense, and Wikipedia is not a mindless set of rules. I found this humorous, but the troubling issue here is that the issues aren't being addressed. Since then, even more primary sources have been added without any apparent interest in finding the claimed mass amount of third party sources. The promises of improving this article have gone unfulfilled, and any further promises ring absolutely hollow. If you want to fix this article, fine, but take it to the article incubator instead. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was partially responsible for the proliferation of these sorts of articles with my work long ago on Batman. The more I've grown as an editor, the more I've come to understand such sections are untenable, and complete articles devoted to fictional details with no real-world context or secondary sources fly in the face of several Wikipedia guidelines. These types of articles are little more than intricate, elaborate plot summaries, and do no fulfill an encyclopedic purpose. Anything of note as covered by third-party sources can be (and already is) covered in the main Spider-Man article. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kusonaga (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -There is no question this page needs to be trimmed and refocused; however, similar to the precidence set in FCB of GG there is standing precidence for fictional bios of Superman, Batman, Dick Grayson, Wonder Woman... The short is while not all characters merit such a large fork of content (like Norman Osborn), I would believe Spider-Man to be first tier character that would require such a page. A character that appears in nearly 6-10 books a month for the past few years produces much content, and to re-focus the article as a publication history; aligned with aformentioned Fictional character biography of ... (all which may carry a different name, but are still looking and quacking like ducks), would be a better use of the content than a simple delete. There are several 2ndary sources and it has been re-editted within the past year, showing work has been done on the page to further align content. Simply precidence is null in this circumstance, and concerns of content seems to be trending for the better. -Sharp962 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Looking at the changes in the article from the begining of May 2010 (just prior to the close of the 3rd AfD) and now - [32] - nothing positive has happened to the article. Just the addition of more plot from more primary sources. As the article currently stands, of the 106 references provided only 3 are from secondary sources. Up from the 2 of 85 at the other end of the comparison frame.

Bluntly: The "Fix it through editing" closes/promises have not worked. And will not work. It has stopped being an option.

Yes, History of Superman, Publication history of Wonder Woman, and to a lesser extent Publication history of Dick Grayson (yes, that one has major sourcing and tone issues) are examples for a similar article on Spider-Man. This one isn't that article and it has become clear it never will be. It's time to put this one away and start History of Spider-Man from scratch, building from the secondary sources first, writing it explicitly in a real world context, and not induldging in adding every scrap of plot relavent to "current canon".

- J Greb (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with J Greb. Sharp, with respect, your vote to keep is little different than the tone of the last couple of AfDs on this article. The idea that we should keep it and fix it has been argued extensively. Yet, despite heavy pressure from multiple editors to correct this article, nobody has...even the most ardent supporters of it. This keeps coming up for deletion not because people are out to get it, but because it is not an encyclopedia article. Fixing it would start with wiping out all content not sourced to a non-primary source, but nobody has been brave enough to do that. The article is left at a permanent impasse in a state that is not acceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In direct contrast to J Greb's assertion there was clean-up done to the article. It was cleaned up so well (following the 3rd nomination) that the cleaned up version was merged into the main Spider-Man article to replace the single paragraph that followed a link to the Fictional history article. I thought this article had been made into a redirect to that section in the main article. Spidey104 19:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, why is this article still here?

If the clean up was applied here to reduce the content to the point where it could be folded back to Spider-Man, the page history certainly doesn't show it. It also shows a lack of this ever being converted to a redirect. On the contrairy, it shows that this has been kept, maintained, and expanded as a massiive plot dump from primary sources to meticuliously re-state the current continuity for the charcater.

Props for doing those that did the grunt work to put a proper FCB into the main article, but that was only half the issue. Also, look at what Sharp962 is suggesting then complare this article to History of Superman. If a way this has move from just folding this back, but the refrain stands: This has debate has been closed down three times over the past 2 1/2 years with the stament/promis "Fix it through editing." It hasn't been. And based on this articles history page, it has never been attempted. The FCB at Spider-Man has been addressed. A massive stand alone plot dump is no longer needed for that. That reason for this page to be is gone. There is no faith that this article will see the severe re-working needed to start it along the path of becoming a Spider-Man equivelant of History of Superman.

- J Greb (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thank my old colleague J Greb for the kind kudos on my work at the "Comic book character" section of Spider-Man, which I largely rewrote based on existing material and for which I added the print-book references. It's a 2,500-word section, so it by no means gives the character's fictional history short shrift, but it does place it in a real-world context with quotes from creators, comics historians, and cultural experts. What I hope is that this — like the Superman and Batman articles before it — can demonstrate that we can write a proper character history within a character page without giving blow-by-blow minutiae.

I agree with the vast majority of editors here that Fictional history of Spider-Man should be deleted, since it is at this point redundant. And then we need to keep vigilant at Spider-Man so that plot-creep doesn't set in all over again. (Fortunately, most of the younger editors doing this aren't interested in expanding the older material, so the bulk of it is probably safe.)

Dovetailing this with the discussion at Talk:Fictional history of Wolverine, which is likewise leaning toward delete, I have found it personally easier to start from scratch than to try to wade through incredibly dense trees from which one cannot see the forest.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although, as with the Wolverine timeline article, "Delete" seems to be the popular choice here so far, I'm inclined to agree with Sharp962. BOZ (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess I should be more explicit than I was in my comment about the article being previously fixed up (in a sandbox outside of the actual article): I thought it was already a redirect and that means I also think it should be deleted since I thought it was already gone. It has become a plot dump and the improved 'article' is now part of the main article. Spidey104 16:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Dahlström[edit]

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

Hockey Player who does not meet the HOCKEY requirements for Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. USA1168 (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Pparazorback (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator Peter.C • talk 14:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the moment, but there is a possibility this may become a keep before the AfD closes. He is currently listed as being on the roster of AIK of the Swedish Elite League ([33]), but has not yet played. If he gets into an SEL game (as opposed to the junior J20), he will become notable. Reso lute 16:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. Not notable for the moment. Tooga - BØRK! 18:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability requirements. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy close - Nomination "withdrawld", no votes to delete, non-admin closure.

Premium (marketing)[edit]

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

This article has no sources, seems to be OR or something, and just sticks a couple topics together that are loosely related. Empire3131 (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to WITHDRAWL my nomination due to improvements in the articles. It makes much more sense now. Wikify, sure, but not deletion. (Can someone close this with more knowledge then me on how to close things?)Empire3131 (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Empire3131! Season's Greetings! Thanks for your concerns on my article. I have written a better History with sources this evening. This provides more cohesiveness with the items presented to show the single idea of premiums in this context. I will continue to work to make this flow better, and this will be a good article -- with a little help from my friends. As far as stubs go, with what I have added, it already beats the heck out of a lot of what's out there as far as documentation goes. (I have been spending a little time trying to add sources to some of those articles and stubs that interest me, too.) Please stick with me, because Premium (marketing) is an important topic, not covered by other articles on Wikipedia. I welcome your input, and input from anyone else, to fix this thing so it can grow into the type of article you deem acceptable Wikipedia material. I hope other editors will adopt this article and help me out a little with making it meet Wikipedia standards. Please continue to watch my edits as I work to get closer to something you think can be useful and useable. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --Jeffrey Scott Maxwell (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is clearly completely unresearched. Even a little exercise with various search tools yields the fact that this concept is amply documented in quite a few textbooks on marketing, and is not a Wikipedia editor "sticking together loosely related topics" but is a readily documented and recognized concept in its field. Wikipedia and AFD do not need zero-effort deletion nominations such as this. Uncle G (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^speak 23:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly an encyclopedic topic, although the article needs cleanup. It is currently almost a complete WP:DEADEND. I'll try to add some links. I'd encourage the nominator to withdraw their nomination, as I can almost guarantee that this nomination isn't going to go anywhere. SnottyWong ^speak 23:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Albertson[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ghits is all promo material. GNews has nothing. GBooks does have listed book. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, and fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. I was actually going to CSD A7 this. --Kudpung (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. JFW | T@lk 23:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. The only writing "credit" she has is a vanity-press book. Completely non-notable. Qworty (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunstone (medieval)[edit]

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

Essay masquerading as article, massive steaming pile of original research WuhWuzDat 02:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good masquerade, then. Would you please explain how you find it to be original research? Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you missed this section?? WuhWuzDat 02:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, I did. Good point. I'll also note that the deleted article Sunstone in Iceland makes me wonder what's up with this subject and author.
    On the other hand, the section you mentioned says two of the references are allegorical (suggesting the others are not). If one deleted the text associated with those two references (which ones are they?), and then that statement, would the article be salvageable?
    Cheers, Joe S. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The following section also contains quite a bit of OR, as does the lead, "A theory exists that the sunstone had polarizing attributes and was used as a navigation instrument by Viking period seafarers". what theory? where does it exist? When you remove all the OR, all that is left is a shadowy cobweb of words, following its description as a mythical mineral. WuhWuzDat 02:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In addition to the deleted article you mentioned, there was also Sunstone, medieval, speedy deleted G7 after author blanked it, immediately after it was prodded,(just like Sunstone in Iceland)!). The author seems a bit desperate to have their work as an article. WuhWuzDat 02:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm, the polarizing thing in the lead seems to've been a theory of a Danish archaeologist going by an earlier version [34] of the article. --Whitehorse1 02:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not OR, because it's sourced. It's actually very well-sourced, to academic journals and works published by university presses. Encyclopedic topic etc. --Whitehorse1 02:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't help finding the approach taken toward this new editor unnecessarily bitey. Unsuitable content does need to be dealt with robustly, but I don't think that applies here. I happened to see a link to it being added to a disambiguation page I'd once edited and have watchlisted. (Incidentally, I had posted at the editor's talkpage and on the nominators, [35] but our letters got crossed in the e-post.) Very shortly before, the editor created "Sunstone in Iceland", which was the one I saw. I removed the prod, because it didn't seem like a personal essay to me. They blanked the page, perhaps in despondent response to the deletion notice. That's not uncommon with new editors. They then made the duplicate "Sunstone (medieval)" instead. ...Being new, I expect they hadn't realized they can move (rename) a page, or request it be moved since you need a certain amount of edits before you can perform pagemoves.
I'm not sure the above comment saying the parts that claim specific accounts are allegorical amount to original research is right. The section is well-sourced, perhaps therefore it's a matter of style that could be resolved through clearer in-text attribution? --Whitehorse1 02:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by author.For clarification: The other entries of the same under different headings was my clumsy novice attempt to change the heading. I do not know how to delete the other entries (Sunstone in Iceland and Sunstone, medieval) and would appreciate your help. The entry is a well researched thing with a lot of work and based on properly published material, mostly in refereed journals of medieval literature. (I don't know how to join this discussion in an other way than by editing the discussion page) ArniEin
Keep. Whitehorse1, thank you for the insightful comment
- I hadn't considered the potential lack of understanding of the WP article move process, vice blank/delete and recreate. Your comment provides a good-faith reason (as my comment had said, I didn't understand what was going on).
- I also agree we should encourage new editors.
- I do think the article can be salvaged, as noted in my original reply, in part by removing the "Allegorical references" or referencing reliable sources that do draw the conclusions noted.
Ultimately, I think doing the above, plus adding one or more in-line tags where the references could be improved (as needed) would suffice. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with cleanup needed. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2 by author. I guess there is some misunderstanding about the "allegorical sources" here. Two of the original MEDIEVAL works mentioning the sunstone are allegorical, - that means that the texts contain another layers of meaning, like so many medieval texts do. This means that they need special consideration as authentic records of the existence of sunstones as physical objects. This is a central issue in this WP entry, so deleting the "allegorical references" would leave nothing useful about the medieval sunstone. ArniEin
- Referring to Reliable Sources that interpret these "Allegorical sources" in the way stated in the article would address the major issue that seem to have led to this deletion proposal. This didn't help me understand the issue of "allegorical sources". But (and to the original proposer's point), it is important that the article not have the appearance of being based, at least in part, on Original Research (OR). I think this can be addressed, which is why I recommended Keep. If you have not done so already, reading the referenced article on OR would help you rework the article a bit. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have now added references in order to minimize any impression of Original Research (OR). I have also altered the text to clarify the issue related to the allegorical nature of the medieval written records of sunstones. I believe all references to the scholarly interpretation of the allegorical texts are in place now ArniEin (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Delete"~~, as I still feel this is OR as 7 (of the currently 24) references are to papers written by "Einarsson, Árni.", or various other abbreviations thereof. The articles main author is "ArniEin". This article is the very definition of OR, being an "analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the (3rd party) sources." WuhWuzDat 14:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not. If the works are published that's completely different. If Stephen Hawking wants to come here and write (well, dictate) an article on a recognized theoretical physics concept and use some of his own sources published in academic journals or by established publishing houses that's fine. More than fine in fact. Contributions and assistance from subject matter experts help improve articles. I've not seen any indication the article has a conjectural interpretation of its cited sources. –Whitehorse1 15:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  ^{P.S., As nominator a 'delete' is kinda implied, so typically you can just comment unmarked.}
  - I concur that it is not OR, as it is published. It is indeed a Primary Source, but once it is published, it is not considered OR (because the definition of OR is material that has no published sources). jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may wish to go read the WP:OR page, as the quote in my previous reply was directly from that page, with my addition of "(3rd party)".Regardless of the fact of the sources being published or unpublished, if the positions being advanced by this "article" are not supported directly by sources, the article is OR.WuhWuzDat 16:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm very familiar with the Policy. What is your basis for asserting the factual claims & statements in the article text are not, in fact, supported by the sources to which they are inline-cited? –Whitehorse1 16:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very well sourced, with not only academic references (I wish I had access to those journals!) but a couple of English-language newspaper articles for good measure. I've made the lead paragraph conform better with our usage, the body could do with tightening to reduce repetition, and sad to say, a lot of the authors should be un-redlinked as unlikely to have articles any time soon, but it proves notability - the problems are pretty much all cosmetic. For what it's worth, we already had a related article on Vegvísir, which I discovered when determining whether there was an article on the saga hiding somewhere. That refers to the modern use in polar navigation and might help allay any lingering suspicion of a hoax, though it's badly under-referenced right now. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting an well-referenced article, which is clearly notable and a long way from OR. St Anselm (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be well referenced. I am failing to see the OR claimed by OP. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is well-sourced and informative; I, also, don't see the phantom OR. There are referenes from multiple peer-reviewed journals; the possible WP:COI is alleviated by, as noted, the articles being peer-reviewed. I am also very disturbed by the addition of words, even parenthetically, that are not in a policy to a quote from that policy to alter the policy's wording to support a deletion agenda. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lee Ford(author)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO; COI; article created to link to original research article Endeology. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BIO as a general guideline (which is a more immediate standard to meet). Ironholds (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of assertion of notability. Kansan (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Author has blanked and I have tagged it as G7. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 02:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KMess[edit]

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

No reliable sources and no claim of notability. Tagged for several months. Prod contested in 2009. I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources. Pnm (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N, non-notable software. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable Peter.C • talk 14:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No 3rd party sources/references; no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. per SNOW, and also for drama-reduction (see ANI); this is clearly non-notable. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endeology[edit]

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

Fails WP:N; original research; COI jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this proposal for deletion on the grounds that the article adequately conforms to the following Wikipedia guideline:
- Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endeology (talk • contribs) 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - With all due respect, criteria 5 is clearly not met. The entire subject is based on the self-published original research referenced in the article. Also, the article does not establish any notability. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let us go over the Wikipedia guideline a bit more thoroughly here(if we may). First, it declares that
- "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves..."
This clearly implies that Wikipedia allows articles about self-published materials. If "self published sources" can be used "in articles about themselves," then this obviously states that an article referencing to a self-published book on "Endeology," about the concept of Endeology, would be acceptable.
Next, the user Jsfouche addresses the concern of item # 5 which states that "the article is not based primarily on such sources." The article for "Endeology" is primarily based on the "concept" of Endeology, not on its "source". It indeed references to the book titled Endeology: A Discourse on Primordial Forces, but it does not primarily talk about this book. It deals primarily with the "concept" of Endeology. Please recognize these important distinctions. Thank you.
I can go over the text of the article sentence by sentence to prove this point, if necessary. But I believe it's already quite evident. Thank you.
The article is primarily based on the subject of the article, this being the concept of Endeology. It would be natural for any article to have sufficient content explaining the main components central to the issue set forth. I don't believe it would be an accurate article if the primary content was made up of disconnected material, do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endeology (talk • contribs) 03:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement retracted by author (This edit is in accord with Wikipedia Discussion Guidelines and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act).

Please note: In compliance with Wikipedia’s Discussion Guidelines, the strikethrough method is only "recommended," not mandatory. In order to conform to Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, any website must follow its own policies. Under the advice of my attorney, I have a legal right to edit my own posts in a manner that I see fit, as long as they do not violate any other discussion rules or guidelines. Thank you. --Endeology (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- A few points on your comments above: I am not a Christian. I regret that you erroneously concluded that. Further, it is not civil to make accusations about my "good faith" in following Wikipedia guidelines (and assuming that anyone who is a Christian would likewise obstruct work here on Wikipedia solely because they are Christian). I kindly ask that you refrain from such further statements about myself or any other editors. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement retracted by author (This edit is in accord with Wikipedia Discussion Guidelines and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act)--Endeology (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

- - - This is the last I will say on the matter. You desperately need to read the Wikipedia article on "Assume Good Faith". jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, or as advertising for the author's selfpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement retracted by author (This edit is in accord with Wikipedia Discussion Guidelines and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act).--Endeology (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh god, such blatant self-promotion. User:Endeology, you're already in a hole for creating such an article - stop digging by accusing people of being biased against your imaginary theory just because of their religion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Just keep on digging, man. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under the US Constitution, you have a right to self expression in the USA - or so they say (I'm not American). However, this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia sets the rules here. And I'm afraid that unless you give some reliable independent referencing that shows your philosophy isn't just something only you knows about, then Wikipedia's rules say that you should take it somewhere else. Peridon (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Article about a made-up theory created by an SPA...and s/he should also consider reading WP:POINT. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article in response to the concerns set forth in this forum. I tried to lessen the appearance of it being "self-promotive" and directed the theme primarily toward the "concept" of Endeology. I also changed the word "theory" to “hypothesis” in order to keep in strict alignment with scientific tradition.
If you have any positive suggestions that could help me formulate a strong article, it would be appreciated. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.49.44 (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC) --Endeology (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)--Endeology (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As original research and/or non-notable philosophy. The author is recommended the following sites as they might prove useful in future endeavors: Blogger, Wordpress, Shovels. --Danger (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be a good idea, might not. Whichever it is is irrelevant. It's original research and quite possibly self-published. I can not find the publisher's name outside the context of this subject. Some day, this may be a well-discussed and reliably covered topic. It's not that time yet. For a couple more places to get publicity (but which don't count as 'reliable' here), try AboutUs and/or LinkedIn. They don't have the requirements of notability that we do. Peridon (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW - Promotional can apply to things about charities and things which are totally free like computer freeware and philosophical ideas. It's not just for commercial enterprises. Peridon (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Shockley[edit]

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

One of many juvenile offenders executed in the United States, no real assertion of notability beyond this fact. Kansan (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - still quite notable execution with a juvenile as "victim". someone taking the time to make an article. hmm.. its a tough nut on notability but weak keep for me.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many sources state that he was the last juvenile executed in the United States, therefore, he likely meets WP:PERP #1: "The perpetrator is notable for something beyond the crime itself." Location (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw my nomination - what Location said convinces me. Kansan (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False metal[edit]

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

Fails WP:N; made-up term jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is another one of those cases where people throw the name of a supposed genre around (Geek rock, anyone?) but it can't actually be defined reliably anywhere. And it looks like no one even tried to source this one. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the term does appear to be in use [36], Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Feezo (Talk) 10:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. This article serves the same purpose as Mallcore, to disparage. --Confession0791 ^talk 21:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Peacock[edit]

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

No non-trivial sources found. Only false positives on Google; only sources in article are directory listings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable BLP; could be a George P. Burdell. Feezo (Talk) 10:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 01:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libra Radio[edit]

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

Is this page really notable at all? It seems like a promotional page, and most of the refs used seem forced. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a advertisement, sections below information look like they've been copied and pasted onto the article (all facts and bullet points, no actual information except chairperson and sponsors)--Nz101 - Talk :: Contribs 02:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There does appear to be significant coverage from independent reliable sources, like Sina.com. Looking like an advert is reason for editing, not deletion. An article for a terrestrial radio station like this in the United States would never get deleted. No need for systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article appears to cross both the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACityDiscount[edit]

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

Could not find significant coverage for this retailer. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to what Fetchcomms said the article is super promotional. Peter.C • talk 00:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement -- Nz101 - Talk :: Contribs 02:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant advert, would qualify for speedy delete. LibStar (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Barkatullah[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable per WP:AUTHOR. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 05:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an entry in a print encyclopedia, as referenced in the article, so is clearly a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep entries in real encyclopaedias (just added another) and set on national curriculum establish notability.--Misarxist 11:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chanapatana International Design Institute[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. seems like a private institute with fancy name but hardly any coverage. note gnews also picks up Thai coverage. [37]. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Small but important school of design in Thailand. Not easy to find electronic sources but has had significant media coverage in mainstream press. A ref has been added. Kudpung (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Kudpung - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. This close is based on the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H.E.L.P.eR. that I just closed. Even though there are no cited sources on the page for the content in question, because this is a main charater, I'm going with a soft redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. — Scientizzle 21:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Thaddeus Venture[edit]

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

Clearly, this article does not have a real world coverage and citations, and does not meet the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 10:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. The article in its current state is a major WP:PLOT fail, consisting of 99.9% plot summary (disguised as biography, relationships, etc.), but since this is the titular main character of the series in question I assume that some third-party sources probably exist from which the article could one day be improved. Certainly there is some real-world content that could be written (creation, inspiration, animation, voicing, etc.). But yeah, in its current state it's just plot rehash & ought to be redirected. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Courtois[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Known mostly for the XSL attack. A redirect seems enough to me. ospalh (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar citation counts of 457, 446, 342, 133, 99, etc looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C1 to me, and the media attention to his multiple cryptographic accomplishments (now added to the article, which previously focused only on XSL) looks like a pass of both WP:PROF#C7 and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though not one of the big ones, Nicolas Courtois is a well-known figure in cryptography. He not only published notable papers on algebraic attacks (of which the XSL is the most hyped one), but also made significant contributions to multi-variate cryptography. Nageh (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schiel & Denver Book Publishers[edit]

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

Previously deleted at AfD in 2008. None of the references cited indicate notability as none of them contain in-depth coverage of this company. I can't locate any other reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the company, to meet our general notability guideline and our guideline for corporations. There were promotional issues behind the last creation and the creator of this article has not edited outside of it. Them From Space 12:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ThemfromSpace, thanks for your review. This AAP publisher should meet notability standards (i.e. guideline for corporations) from verifiable involvement with United Nations Global Compact as well as from the other independent and verifiable sources listed. Although the main reference from the New York Center for Independent Publishing (NYCIP) which previously contained a detailed professional summary was lost since the NYCIP remerged into the General Society and no longer has summaries on any it's member publishers; Pan Macmillan's The Writers Handbook Book 2011 which is a major information source for writers (and readily available from most traditional bookstores) has an independently researched section on Schiel & Denver. Suggest to Keep or at most editing and making a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronauthor (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC) this is User:Aronauthor's first edit Them From Space 10:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's nothing more than a vanity press. The article also suffers from WP:COI, WP:SPA, and WP:SPAM. Also, as an article previously deleted through AfD, it should have been speedy-deleted this time around. All of these crazy redirects should also be deleted [38] Qworty (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SPAM as well as multiple other guidelines. Nakon 09:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe requires more editing, but not liking something is not sufficient grounds for removal WP:JDLI. Please tone down the grossly unfair commentary too. These "crazy redirects" are all valid search terms [39] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefentry1900 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see anything in the refs that indicates notability - one doesn't even mention the company. Merely being a 'vanity press' isn't a ground for deletion (there are articles on others), but being a vanity press without indication of notability is, as it is for any other press or furniture remover or petroleum corporation. Peridon (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A word to New Accounts and editors of the article (not including Drmies...) I notice that a lot of accounts have edited this article. Indeed, with the exception of the established and regular editor Drmies, these accounts have only edited the article and possibly this discussion. This does happen, and in my experience at AfD it is often a sign of sockpuppetry. Please see WP:SOCK before creating new accounts to vote here, or using multiple accounts to give an impression of activity. This is not a head count - it is a discussion. I may be wrong, and all these eager little beavers may be just that, and not one large beaver trying to conceal its tracks. (Yes, I am cynical...) Peridon (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gnews shows a meagre 3 hits. [40]. one article claims this is the leading book publisher?!...if that was true it would get multiple stories in the country that publishes more books than any other. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Time (Christina Aguilera song)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on a single that never charted. Appears to not be particularly notable. Powers ^T 13:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-charting single, no sources, will get re-created if redirected. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mugz Magazine[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable magazine. I can find no news mentions of the zine, and the web coverage seems to be mainly advertising for itself and a few non-notable mentions. Article created seemingly by the author for promotional purposes. Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Canterbury Tail. Peter.C • talk 01:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eclectic Horseman Magazine[edit]

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

Non notable magazine. No independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage that I could find. Prod was removed. Dana boomer (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Appears to be small regionally-based publication. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. You will note that the total absence of any interest whatsoever speaks volumes. I've been trying to dump this thing for months. Why is it even being relisted? Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP. It's a legitimate magazine with 159,000 GHits. Qworty (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS. The number means little. LibStar (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate does not always (or even often) equal notable, and neither does a google search that turns up the name. (I'm only getting 67K hits with "eclectic horseman magazine" in quotations, but that's beside the point). How many reliable, third party sources did you find in those 159K hits, that weren't to the magazine itself, advertisements, forum sites or facebook pages? If you can find me multiple (at least two) reliable sources that give more than a passing mention of this magazine, then I will agree with you that it should be kept. Dana boomer (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete google news turns up nothing. Could not find any reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth Day Books[edit]

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

Non notable bookstore, references consist of passing mentions, links which do not mention the subject, and a lecture by the store owner talking about his vocation. WuhWuzDat 14:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a notable bookstore and small publisher. Covered in depth by a couple of online sources that seem to be reliable. Clearly a borderline case, but not as unnotable as the nominator claims, nor as notable as the article's author does. More than just your average neighborhood store. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kitfoxxe Peter.C • talk 00:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple references from third parties to demonstrate notability. St Anselm (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable bookstore. Qworty (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of optical character recognition software. Any merging can be done from the history. Sandstein 10:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of free open source optical character recognition software[edit]

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

Content split of List of optical character recognition software that does not reference parent list. No substantive improvement beyond what the parent list has. Hasteur (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Please note that this is a general Wikipedia policy to have separate list for a free open source software. See, for example, List of audio conversion software and List of free audio convertion software (more examples will be addedd here soon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim Leyenson (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:OTHERSTUFF. In the example case you are using, the free audio conversion software has significantly more and different information than the top page. It also does not differentiate by open source. Hasteur (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy. --Karnesky (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. The 'notes' fields have diverged & the external link seems like a decent reference. I'd propose a rename to reflect that this is a software comparison & to remove the coloring of the license column (the free/nonfree templates typically refer to price in other software columns) and to add an additional column as to whether it is F/OSS (so that sorting on that column can make the same info that would be in the article that is up for deletion easily comparable). --Karnesky (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Karnesky: I have rewritten the page as a list; do you think it looks better this way? I also added some new links. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim Leyenson (talk • contribs) 19:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Creates barely any value over the sortable wikitable at List of optical character recognition software. Per Karnesky, some useful content has been added. --Pnm (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps a distribution or cost column could be added to List of optical character recognition software to help clarify. It's easy enough to sort the table to find the free/open source options, but when you're browsing it may not be obvious what Apache means. (SimpleOCR is listed as "Freeware and Commercial" which describes its distribution and cost; proprietary would describe its license.) --Pnm (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hajime Wakai[edit]

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

Does fulfill neither of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER. Article unreferenced, no sources exist on the subject. No way to expand the article beyond a simple credits list. Prime Blue (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. No coverage outside IMDB to indicate that this person satisfies the basic notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Necrophobia. Consensus appears to be that the topic might be notable, but that that the article is an essay and heavy on original synthesis. If someone wishes to attempt an encyclopedic article about death anxiety, there are some resources cited here that can be relied upon. Mandsford 00:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theories of death anxiety[edit]

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

This is a personal essay on which works in the field of death anxiety are particularly notable, and why. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Interesting, but Wikipedia isn't the place to write your thesis. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extra strong delete to compensate for the inexplicable weak delete above. This is OR/SYNTHESIS of the most blatant kind. EEng (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normal Powered Delete. Weak thesis, no established external notability. Can't see why anyone would reference such an entry. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to death anxiety, a clearly notable topic, for which this article is a perfectly valid start, especially as it explicitly references sources in the text, making it the exact opposite of OR/SYNTHESIS. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrophobia already exists with a section on thanatophobia (which redirects to necrophobia). It seems that contributions on death anxiety might better be placed in that context. In any case, the OR nature of this specific article still leads me to continue to support delete. I think the idea of death anxiety is ubiquitous, but a thesis on a handful of select theories is not necessary. Articles about specific theories, and death and dying theorists (e.g., Elisabeth Kübler-Ross) are perfectly appropriate, yet better approached via contribution to the appropriate articles, followed by categorization. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's the "OR nature of this specific article"? Name two sources that do not support the content they are purported to support. Point to a novel hypothesis not mentioned in the sources. Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominator's statement already explained the issue, which is seen in the lead: "Along with Sigmund Freud’s and Ernest Becker’s works, the following works on death anxiety are worth mentioning." It's an editor's selection and summary of various theories, with no RS to tell us why these are "worth mentioning" or how they relate to one another (or to anything else, for that matter). EEng (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see the article now. The wrong words "worth mentioning" have been replaced.Shoovrow (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is change "worth mentioning" to "can be found." Apparently you're still the one selecting certain theories for mention in the article. Still OR/OSynth. EEng (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Necrophobia. The content has some WP:NOR issues (appears to contain editorial opinion), but the content is almost very good for the project, and with some little work could be used to substantially improve the article Necrophobia. Suggest at Talk:Necrophobia that there may be useful material to be found in the history behind the redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make it even stronger. These theories are notable as no other theory on death anxiety could be found. If you find one pls add it. The best way is to turn the article to something like "Death Anxiety" and enrich it with definitions and etc. Death Anxiety is a part of Scientific Thanatology and it is quite reasonable that it should seem like a thesis or personal essay.Shoovrow (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shoovrow, you would be the sole substantive author of this page? No, it is not OK to make a page about theories, and then add every related theory that can be found. You first have to find sources (secondary sources) that discuss these theories, in a general sense. What you may be able to do is add these theories to the subject they theorise on, which in this case seems to be Necrophobia. I urge you to do this. You seem knowledgeable on the subject, and the encyclopedia would be better with your contributions, but you, especially, need to take the messages written at WP:NOR to heart. WP:NOR is an essential restriction to the project to counterbalance the disregard the project has for the credentials (if any) of the editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dear SmokeyJoe, I must admit I am a amateur editor for wiki and I welcome helpful comments from experienced editors. I am a researcher of Thanatos Psychology and there Thanatophobia is usually referred to as Death Anxiety in practical use. And u see I proposed to upgrade this article to Death anxiety, that is Thanatophobia - just as u said. So I support u in adding them to thanatophobia. Plus I put all the theories I found as a researcher. But if I have missed one anyone is welcomed to add. pls forgive me if I'm breaking any rule in haste. I shall request u to proceed with what u are proposing. My english is not very good. After u do the changes, I might help them with my knowledge! Cant it be a group effort Bro?Shoovrow (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bros, as a physician (and Thanatos psychologist as well) I must clarify that necrophobia is fear of dead and thanatophobia is fear of death, i believe these theories are on fear of death, and not dead. Just tried to be helpful!Shoovrow (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. There have been several small improvements since December 29, 2010 that moves this away from mere essay to article. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to write personal essays. Spatulli (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Coffee (Firefox add-on)[edit]

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

Unremarkable product with no indication of notability. Wcheck (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge and redirect to List of Firefox extensions. The Lifehacker post might be reliable but it's hardly substantial. --Pnm (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy If the article is deleted, could the closing admin please userfy the article. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Full coverage in Washington Post [41], multiple short but not trivial coverage elsewhere (e.g. [42] , [43] but also others, check [44]), meets WP:GNG.--Cyclopia ^talk 01:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep mainly based on the PC World coverage (cited above based on its reprint in the Washington Post) and other sources. Could also quite reasonably be merged, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - PC world coverage. Washington Post coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change to weak keep. The PC world article is good. I have to wonder whether we'll want to keep this article in 5-10 years, but as I see it it meets WP:GNG. --Pnm (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG, significant coverage in multiple sources Spatulli (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of architectural styles 6000BC – present[edit]

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

This and its related articles were declined for speedy deletion and prod, but I have no idea why. There is no content in any of them other than an unsourced timeline. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator suggested to redirect another page here [45] and delete this page. This is not logical. Besides, this diagram is helpful and therefore must be kept.Biophys (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Clever, useful navigation aid. Should be based entirely on existing article content, specifically on the articles linked. Seems to be upside down Gantt chart style. This style of presentation of material is normal, and not copyrightable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like lists, timelines don't need to demonstrate that they themselves are notable. Helpful to the reader, and because these charts employ MediaWiki, the only way they could be copyvios is if they had been taken from another website that used MediaWiki — information itself can't be copyrighted. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepUseful navigational aid. The entries should be articles in their own right. Architectural styles are certainly given dates in textbooks and other encyclopedias, so the chronology is sourceable. The original reference was to a defunct website of unestablished reliability, viewable through the Internet Archive at [46], but obviously other sources can provide dates. Any textbook of humanities or of architecture could be used as a basis, and I doubt there would be much disagreement over when a style emerged. There would be disagreement for the "end" of a style, since any modern McMansion, school or bank might be built in any given historic style. Edison (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of architectural styles 1000AD – present[edit]

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

redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of architectural styles 6000BC – present —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clever, useful navigation aid. Should be based entirely on existing article content, specifically on the articles linked. Seems to be upside down Gantt chart style. This style of presentation of material is normal, and not copyrightable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like lists, timelines don't need to demonstrate that they themselves are notable. Helpful to the reader, and because these charts employ MediaWiki, the only way they could be copyvios is if they had been taken from another website that used MediaWiki — information itself can't be copyrighted. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Useful navigational aid which can be referenced to textbooks with histories of architectural styles. Edison (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of architectural styles 1900–present[edit]

Keep I found this very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of architectural styles 6000BC – present —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are either original synthesis, or, more likely, a blatant ripoff of a chart that someone else had put together. There were some links to a website to the Jacob Voorthuis lectures at the Eindhoven University of Technology, but those no longer function. Mandsford 01:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It provides a very useful diagram with internal wikilinks to other pages. I do not see any proof that this is a copyright violation as suggested by Mandsford.Biophys (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clever, useful navigation aid. Should be based entirely on existing article content, specifically on the articles linked. Seems to be upside down Gantt chart style. This style of presentation of material is normal, and not copyrightable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like lists, timelines don't need to demonstrate that they themselves are notable. Helpful to the reader, and because these charts employ MediaWiki, the only way they could be copyvios is if they had been taken from another website that used MediaWiki — information itself can't be copyrighted. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The defunct website is still viewable via the Internet Archive at [47]. But histories of architecture can be used to reference the beginning dates for the styles. A useful navigational aid. Needs expansion and broadening to include non-western styles. Edison (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time[edit]

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

Non-notable fan film. Only critical reception is from FanFilms.net —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

its a very well known film with many fans and admirers, with all the hard work spent to creat it, it desearves to have recognition --- Dar, The Beastmaster (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we need is non trivial coverage from reliable indepedant secondary sources before we can have an article without that there should not be an article even if it "deserve coverage". If the film is that well know there it should be easy to find coverage.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - coverage at GamesRadar, Joystiq. Probably squeaks by WP:SIGCOV. --Teancum (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm on the same page as Teancum. There are a few references and some reception for the article, it's just poorly written and not referenced at all. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]