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.
Delete This is an unsourced list with no indication of what makes these organizations notable. Papaursa (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be original research and gives no reason (or sources) as to why these organizations are notable and other organizations are not. Jakejr (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Karate is one of the major martial arts, and I think it is valuable to have a list of the key karate organisations (i.e., notable organisations). The article does need improvement. Janggeom (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added to the correct dated log on 04-Jan-2011. Jarkeld (talk) 00:04, 4 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 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. Courcelles 11:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepSeems to have a documented source for a world championship, although it appears to be just an article from the local paper. The article could certainly use more references. Jakejr (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I've been convinced by Janggeom's arguments. Jakejr (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not reliably demonstrate notability. The only points that I can see supporting notability are the ISKA championships. The only independent source I have been able to find to support those points, so far, is a single local newspaper article. Janggeom (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it could use more and better sources, but I thought a documented world championship was enough since the ISKA is a well-known organization. Are local papers not considered sufficient? Jakejr (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me, a single local newspaper article is not a reliable demonstration of notability, bearing in mind that: (1) the subject's notability hinges on the point, and (2) I have been unable to find any other sources to verify the point reliably. This includes the ISKA's own websites; the only mention that I found of the subject places him 3rd, 6th, and 8th in various categories of competition in 2009. Janggeom (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The results you cite are for the U.S. Open karate tournament (a tournament on the NASKA circuit), so I don't think those results show notability. Jakejr (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the results do not support notability (which was my point). If this was the 'best' I could find, apart from the newspaper article or any primary sources, then I don't consider notability to be reliably supported. This is extremely sparse coverage for 'world championship' titles, so I am inclined to doubt the validity of the claim. Just a note to clarify on my meaning. Janggeom (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's claims are sufficient to meet the notability criteria, but I can't find independent sources (except for the local one I'd already put in the article) to support them. Papaursa (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added to the correct dated log on 04-Jan-2011. Jarkeld (talk) 00:02, 4 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 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.
Uncertain, leaning towards Weak Delete I couldn't find good independent sources that show this is a notable martial art, but I did find several passing mentions. I talked to several people who believe this art is notable, but they didn't have any reliable sources. Jakejr (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not demonstrate notability. I looked at the art's history and, on a cursory examination, nothing there indicated to me that this art is notable by Wikipedia's principles. Janggeom (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got a lot of ghits, but I don't see reliable sources supporting notability. Astudent0 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added to the correct dated log on 04-Jan-2011. Jarkeld (talk) 00:04, 4 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy close - Nomination withdrawn, no votes to delete. Thanks to Michael Q. Schmidt for sourcing the article. (Non-admin closure) SnottyWongconfer 01:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plot-only description of a non-notable direct-to-video movie. No significant, independent coverage in reliable sources of this movie to satisfy WP:GNG. SnottyWongverbalize 23:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Yeah, bad article. But notable franchise. I don't see how this is any less notable than the tons of other direct-to-video articles on wikipedia. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe it's notable, produce sources which satisfy WP:GNG. SnottyWongbabble 06:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The provided finsources offers reviews and articles that show significant coverage which allows editors (other than yourself) a reasonable presumption toward notability and does not demand that they personally produce the found sources simply because you demand it. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 20:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being a part of a notable series doesn't establish notability sufficient to justify a separate article. Notability is not inherited. If WP:GNG is not satisfied for this particular film, then I agree it should be merged and redirected (which is a form of deletion) back to the article on the series. SnottyWongconverse 20:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if it were an episode, but it's a standalone movie. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant? Either there are sources which pass WP:GNG, or there aren't. It doesn't matter if it's an episode, a movie, a book, an album, a song, a turnip, or a spork. SnottyWongconfabulate 22:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... and in consideration of the NOW improved article I suggest the nominator think about a withdrawal as his concerns have been addressed. With only the most cursory of research it is found that numerousreliable sources have discussed this film directly and in detail. And now what was so emminently fixable has been fixed. What was perhaps understandably sent to AFD originally as nothing but an unsourced and bloated plotline,[1] has now with a little work been made into a properly encyclopedic article... cleaned up, wikified, and now well and propely sourced.[2]Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 00:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I disagree on that 1) Wang Xiaolong is not a notable person and 2) the Article does not have references. As been improved, the article has already been added references, and work is in progress.
Tbh®tch's comments that "I am nominating it to AFD due to someone removed the PRODBLP without add a single reference." is untrue as it was not the case that "someone removed the PRODBLP without add a single reference", someone only removed the PRODBLP after adding a few references.
The reason that I removed the initial AfD notices on 29th Dec was that in the notice, it clearly said "Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the ((prod blp)) tag" As I have provided reliable sources to the article, it seemed rather logical to me that I may remove the ((prod blp)) tag.
Did I misunderstand something?
With images, I can state that the images are photoes of Wang Xiaolong's work, and the images are taken in his studio in China, which is open to public, and they do not fall into a copyvio.
Other people's comments such as "citation needed", are being worked on.
Welcome your further comments, and Happy New Year
--Giloveart (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) Conerning of sources: it seemed to me that google translation didn't do a very good job in translating the Chinese. On the Chinese page, the text clearly stated the images are from "Sanzi", Wang Xiaolong's tag name, and he was "well-known". If you would copy the Chinese text on the page into a better online translation tool, I assume you would have more confidence in the source.
2) Reference 3, 6 and 7 are referring to the same book, hence same ISBN number, and I have a copy of the book. I myself did the same searching via Google, and I couldn't locate it either. I am not sure if Google and WorldCat would record ALL books that have been published? I could send you a scanned copy of the book cover if that helps.
3)It seems to me that the article clearly meet the WP:BASIC criteria, which says "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." I see Wang Xiaolong clearly satisfies the above criteria as the sources (citation) provided are multiple, independent of each other and independent of the subject. With "award" and "widely recognised contribution", they fall into ADDITIONAL criteria, which states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." And, this does not imply that Wang Xiaolong has not received any "award", which I will be happily adding to the article.
4) I also wonder if you would give me some help regarding how I can rename the article from Wang Xiaolong (artist) to Sanzi which is how he is widely recognised?
Happy New Year to you
--Giloveart (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Abandoned unfinished list article which is copyvio of thisFalcadore (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a copyvio, because the information is an unoriginal list of facts. It's rather similar to copying a telephone book, which presents facts in a way that anyone could think of presenting them. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even when formatting is nearly identical? --Falcadore (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if that were the case, but that's not the case here. The other chart has significantly more information than this. It's quite natural to include information about position, name of driver, and type of car; nationality is important in an international race; and the engine type might well be significant to car-racing people. You can't copyright the arrangement of five columns of information. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem sufficiently notable to deserve an article. Includes nothing but a copy from a single source. Only one other year has an individual article and that is as insubstantial as this one, and should probably also be Afd'd unless more substantial sources are used. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs) 03:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find any news or other source to support the article. CPerked (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 11:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of notability and I can't verify anything mentioned in this article through secondary sources. The wiki itself appears to largely be a clone of Wikipedia articles, e.g. content has been lifted from our article on Sedum (the lead paragraph in particular) and imported into their article with no mention of the text's creative commons license or origin (not itself a reason to delete the article, but proves the subject of the article is not notable yet). The more notable website Dave's Garden doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article yet. Rkitko (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources outside of the encyclopedia itself noting its notability. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agree with nominator, but creator of the article must have a chance to provide any references to publications about this site. I hope such publications exist. If not, this should be deleted per per WP:Notability. Unfortunately. Biophys (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The creator was notified and has not provided sources. I've also done extensive searching for anything on this to satisfy notability; the closest I come is a press release on a press release service website. There has been no newspaper coverage or even blogs. The top google hits (for "The Plant Encyclopedia" + "Aden Earth", since googling the name "The Plant Encyclopedia" alone brings up tons of other websites) are all self-promotion, e.g. his own websites, twitter accounts, facebook profiles, and his Wikipedia user page. I'm satisfied I have not missed anything that would fulfill notability requirements for this website. Rkitko (talk) 20:03, 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 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improper references to self-published sources: Own webspace, ? (ell), blogs (ell), youtube-clones, last.fm.de (in German).
There is no article about him on the greek wiki Νίκος Αντωνίου Online researches bring only the usual social networks: myspace, facebook aso. plus a few links where he tries to sell his mp3s. A google search with his name in greek letters only on web sites written in greek has a similar effect.
Self-promotion. Ben Ben (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources needed for notability are inexistent. Using primary sources as base for notability is not acceptable. Ubot16 (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete even in Greek, most hits for the name refer to totally unrelated persons. Constantine ✍ 13:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see no reason why a short article with references on a greek artist should be deleted. His record company is in U.S.A, so don't don't google it in greek NAMUSICTV (talk) 18:36, 1 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 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.
Does not indicate notability, being the daughter of Thomas Tyldesley of Morleys Hall makes notability quistionable H66666666 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see no reason why a short article with references on a member of a notable Lancashire family and abbess of a convent should be deleted.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do see notability from her service as an abbess. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She sounds a remarkable woman; much more notable than many of today's "celebrities" who are accepted without question. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She seems perfectly notable to me. Far more so than the minor footballers or soap stars who're considered to be sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. MalleusFatuorum 00:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Malleus. Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C.Fred. Nev1 (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable as an abbess for 45 years and for putting her Gravelines convent on a sound footing. However, do we not need an article on the hisoitry of this convent too? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm tempted.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well attested and notable as an abbess. JASpencer (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ther's a lot of prose there, but not much which really explains why he's notable. And this article has been here for almost two years, entirely unsourced. No BLP should be sitting here that long without reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 21:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe there is/was a local noteability (local TV progamme) but the tone the articel is written disqualifies it for an encyclopedia. This amount of claims and name dropping without sources (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ...), that is only boasting. A look in the eldest versions of the article brings the designation dance cameo. He is not mentioned as a member of the New York City Breakers even.--Ben Ben (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wkipedia is not a game guide, nor a "How to" guide. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, Wikipedia is not a game guide. The content in this article does not warrant a merge back to Dead Rising 2, either. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – If I have an extremely hard time figuring out what I am reading about, chances are that is not a very good topic for a Wikipedia article. –MuZemike 02:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And somebody please school the creator on proper usage of apostrophes? –MuZemike 02:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
CommentDelete - according to the article Sternweiler, a US Army officer, received the Federal Cross of Merit (a German award, apparently the highest civilian award AGF) for saving some documents at the end of the Second World War. AFAIK this is a fairly common award (according to the wiki article at least there are between 3,000 and 5,200 awards given out every year across all classes.) As such this in itself is probably not notable per WP:MILMOS/N, although I imagine it would have been fairly rare for an American to receive one. The other obvious issue is the current lack of depth in the articles referencing. Although currently all major points have a citation they all use the same website (an obituary from Clevland.com). This may indicate a lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources as well and further any claim that the subject is not notable. That said I would be interested to see if other editors are able to dig up some references before I pass judgement. Anotherclown (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After doing a search I cannot find much coverage of this guy. There appears to be a couple of passing mentions of his name in a few foreign language publications and there are two news articles about his award and an obituary. This doesn't seem like significant coverage and indeed does not provide enough information to write a biography. Perhaps some of this infomation could be merged into another article but IMO there isn't sufficient notability for an article of its own. Changing to delete. Anotherclown (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as is, the article fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:GNG. I don't think that there is any sufficient claim to notability here, and the single source really isn't enough if there were. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a few links. There is an article about the military records on wikipedia, actually - linked it. The department for the records still exists and is online with english sites - linked them too.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although Im glad he did what he did to save the records there doesn't seem to be enough references available to really say anything about him or the act. It just doesn't seem noteworthy enough for an article --Kumioko (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines required for inclusion as a stand-alone article. Most references are either not independent or are not significant coverage. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 4 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, can't find any information on this film. Prod removed by IP without comment. ...discospinstertalk 19:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Discovered this during NPP. IP address being very clever and linked it to somewhat related articles (and had them point at this article). According to the linking text, this movie is slated to come out in the year 4000. Hoax perhaps, but still worth noting. Hasteur (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G3 obvious hoax. Think about it: Would DreamWorks really allow one of their most well known properties to cross over with a completely unrelated cartoon that's been canceled for several years? The two shows aren't even the same animation style! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not discussed by independent sources. Search on guardian reveals one true positive, passing mention. Sandman888 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable award. GiantSnowman 15:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As linked to above, this award has received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable award, and should be noted as significant achievement in any relevant biog. --Dweller (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable award.--EchetusXe 10:58, 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 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 G3 as blatant hoax. The two photos in it were clearly identifed as a completely different breed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This dog breed does not appear to have any reliable sources written about it or to meet the general notability guidelines required for inclusion as a stand-alone article. Much of the material written here by the author is false. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of listing this one, i thought it would of been fake.. --Darthvadar92 (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The keep arguments do not convincingly counter WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." This is, like all such cases, tragic and horrifying, but there is nothing to suggest any long-term significance. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many things in this particular case are notable, sutch as how the girl was treated and how the closing argument was made. Also the bike race makes it notable, and ofcourse the scholarship which is presented in one of the sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Child sexual abuse laws in the United States. References #1 and #5 consist of realtively insignificant coverage about the subject and bike race in local news sources. This fails WP:NOTNEWS. References #3 and #4 are from a website attempting to raise awareness about child abuse; it does not appear to fulfill the "reliable source" criteria. The strongest argument for keeping is reference #2, a document from the South Carolina legislature, which gives a brief overview of the case and the bill that was drawn-up. The vast majority of GHits for "Stephanie's Law", however, refer to legislation in another state. Location (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately, BabbaQ seems to conflate "I think it's important" with Wikipedia's definition of notability. There is nothing in the GNG giving presumptive notability to the honoree of bike races, nor to those in whose name a scholarship is given, nor to fundraisers provoked by closing arguments in criminal trials, even when such allegations are supported by reliable sources, which is not the case here. What elements of the GNG or any pertinent notability criteria does anyone think are met here? So far, it looks like a WP:ONEEVENT case to me. Ravenswing 05:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is more deep then a few wikipedia guidelines. Interest and notability is also a factor. WP:ONEEVENT doesnt apply here as of murder,bike race,scholarship etc etc... time to read trough that section again I pressume.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: However, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are the only criteria we can use to assess articles at AfD. Unsupported emotional arguments are given very little credence here, the more so in that "interest" and "notability" are subjective values. ONEEVENT most certainly does apply here; the subject's sole claim to notability is as a crime victim, without which no one would be attempting fundraising efforts in her name. Ravenswing 14:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because a victim of a crime doesn't make it notable.(she is not notable outside the crime) Of course, I understand feelings to keep this page. Soewinhan (talk) 18:34, 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 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.
I found this at New Pages, but I haven't the least idea whether this is notable or not, or even whether the music or books criteria should apply to this sort of mixed media. The group is notable; I can not judge whether this 2-song compilation is to be judged as an "album"nThe book under its own right is not notable--worldcat shows it in only 4 libraries. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - EPs are generally not notable, even if by notable artists. This article does not establish any extraordinary notability in which to have its own article. The same also goes for the majority of the EPs listed at the artist's article. Poking around resulted in finding only minimal information on each of the EP articles. Perhaps these should be nominated along with this title? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 11:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Scott's statement "EPs are generally not notable, even if by notable artists" is not supported by WP:NALBUMS. However, the rest of his assessment on notability is valid. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obscure, limited edition promotional item that was never likely to be covered in reliable third-party sources, and hasn't been. However, the release in conjunction with a book is a fairly interesting fact that could be mentioned at the band's page with proper attribution. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:26, 4 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, youth soccer player, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on a non-notable martial arts style that has no independent sources. The style fails WP:MANOTE. It lacks notable practitioners and is a subset of a an art that was already deleted as non-notable. Jakejr (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent sources that show notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not demonstrate notability. On a brief search, I found one Black Belt magazine article that mentioned this art, but nothing else substantial. Janggeom (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found nothing to show this is a notable martial art. Astudent0 (talk) 18:06, 4 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 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.
Sources are YouTube videos, Know Your Meme and T-shirt vendors. Not one of those is a reliable source. Article is nothing but trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:WEB. Has received coverage on cnet.com and Time.com, but both are just passing mentions. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful. That'd just mean some n00b would revert the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case there's nothing easier than protecting the redirect. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we have watchlists, and redirects that users turn into redirects are tagged (Special:AbuseFilter/342), which makes them easier to spot on RecentChanges and the watchlist. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't really see the fuss here. Famous YouTube video, like Keyboard Cat[4] which has 11.6 million views compared to Dramatic Chipmunk's 25.6 million. It is not always easy to source Internet memes, but the Dramatic Chipmunk easily qualifies as one of the best known. There is useful information in the article about the background to the making of the video.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 18:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, but where would you put this information instead? I seem to recall repeated criticism of your policy on deletion during numerous failed attempts to become an admin.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 18:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Ianmacm - TPH's RFAs are not relevant here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – Per Ianmacm and ErikHaugen; "weak keep" due to most of the article being bulleted trivia. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, that video was stupid, but plenty of coverage including CNET and People magazine. CTJF83chat 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a youtube phenomenon is not a criteria of WP:NF, and indeed many fail meeting inclusion guidelines... but a film having wide critical commentary in multiple reliable sources is a criteria of WP:NF.[5][6]Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 02:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is not ideal in its current form, but it does contain some useful sourced information about the background to the video. Cleanup is a better option than deletion.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 08:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No non-trivial sources. Award wins are trivial, just proving how meaningless the phrase "award winning" has become. Utterly fails notability for BLPs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being blatant WP:ADVERT and as failing WP:CREATIVE and WP:BLP. Just with the deleted article on his recent film project, the article includes only two sources... one to a deadlink to Daily Record article,[7], and the other to an unrelated PhillyBurbs article.[8]Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 03:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Neither the filmmaker nor his work have non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article seems to be updated anonymously by persons with a singular interest (refer to IP contributions and guidlines to insufficient notability). Cheezwzl (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being edited by accounts that may have a COI, while undesirable, is not a reason for deletion. Lankiveil(speak to me) 04:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This seems to be a hoax. The on-line references are all dead-links, and searches find only WP mirrors. That's negative evidence, but the Australian Capital Territory's Department of Territory and Municipal Services website does have a section on Sustainable Transport, which would surely mention this Authority if it existed. The author Ardornofan (talk·contribs) edited only on a single day three years ago, and his only other contribution Ambrose Park, New South Wales is also a suspected hoax (see AfD below). Congratulations to Grogan deYobbo (talk), who tagged them both. At best, this fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I come from Canberra and it looks like a joke, but obviously by sombody very familar with Canberra politics.--Grahame (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost certain to be a hoax Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if not a hoax then obviously completely non-notable. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if sources can't even verify its existence, won't pass any notability mark. LibStar (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either non-notable or hoax. bobrayner (talk) 23:39, 1 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 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. Courcelles 11:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a hoax; searches find nothing but WP mirrors, and online maps do not show this suburb, nor do they show the reserve after which it is said to be named. The Postcodes Australia site doesn't find it. (The postcode given seems to cover the whole of Nowra). See also the article talk page. The author Ardornofan (talk·contribs) edited only on a single day three years ago, and his only other contribution ACT Hybrid Vehicle Authority also seems to be a hoax (see AfD above). At best, this fails WP:N and WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the reserve exists but it is gazetted as Ambrose Golden-Brown Park and was in fact named after "the first Aborigine elected to Shoalhaven City Council" (Geographical Names Board of New South Wales), but isn't marked on maps. I do have to question the photo as well since it doesn't match the houses seen on Google Maps, the house roofs are different colours on Google but the photos shows them differently and the road is a white colour were as on Google it is a grey/black. Bidgee (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least part-hoax. While it is still the silly season my guess for the picture is one of the 1980s dormitory suburbs south of Strasbourg/Metz in France (Crusoe8181 (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete No evidence that a suburb with this name exists. Melburnian (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, amazing how such a fake and suspiciously written article survives... Not for long. Would like to see the article rescue squadron have a go at this. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 2 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 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.
No assertion of notability. Plenty of original research and the tone is not neutral. Also seems to be linked to a similar article Lezgishvili. Not all surnames need articles, in short. Spiderone 16:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Lushhhhhhhh (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOR and WP:NOTMYSPACE. This just does not add up, it's all over the place, it's neither coherent nor encyclopedic. IZAK (talk) 08:38, 2 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 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. Courcelles 11:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google returns few results when searching his name in English. Haven't any reliable sources to verify that he has played passes WP:NFOOTBALL. nn123645 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Merely being the squad is not enough to pass Spiderone 21:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unencylopaedic; wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is unlikely that an encyclopaedic article could be written for the phrase. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 15:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of "not a dictionary." For some expressions there is some interesting background material which sometimes justifies an exception to the rule. In this case there does not seem to be. Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a dictionary, and no potential here for an encyclopaedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no way this can be expanded into a real encyclopedia entry. It could perhaps be transwikied to Wiktionary, if there is not already an entry there. There is: [9].LadyofShalott 02:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill article. Lugnuts (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That source doesn't demonstrate anything more than one might expect to find in a fairly thorough dictionary entry, it simply gives its definition, origin and usage; I see no indication that there's anything significant about this phrase which allows for encyclopaedic coverage. Perhaps you could consider supplementing the wiktionary entry instead. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 16:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not seem to be at all notable. A Google search gives almost no information on him, reliable or unreliable. Borock (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also consider deletion of The Times Behind the Signs, which I have nominated separately. No evidence of notability for this minor author, to the extend that I consider both articles purely promotional. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Written by a bunch of single-purpose accounts, at least one of which was blocked. Fails WP:BK, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:SPA. Agree that The Times Behind the Signs should also be deleted, as it suffers from the same problems. Qworty (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not Notable. No external links as references or establishing notability. Google search reveals organization posted material. Nitack (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmm, according to The Independent, the organization was founded in 1904. It is one of the largest special schools and centres for epilepsy in the UK (Fitness for Work: The Medical Aspects, p. 183), see Google Books for more information. I think this is worthy of mentioning here on Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the ref from the Charity Commission shows it is a sizeable UK charity. Article obviously could do with expansion, but not deletion material. --Mervyn (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Better sourcing needed for this article, but it passes a cursory smell test for WP inclusion-worthiness. Century-old charity organizations are unquestionably the subject of significant secondary coverage, it's just a matter of someone rolling up their sleeves and digging it up. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A minor coach (bus) company in northern England. I see no evidence of notability; four of the five references have only trivial coverage of the firm, and the fifth has nothing about it at all. Delete for lack of notability. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the listing of colours and registration numbers of every bus takes this firmly into WP:IINFO territory, and there is no indication that the company is notable. JohnCD (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from issues of notability, it is impractical to keep this article up to date. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as a re-creation by Gandt123 (talk·contribs) — clearly the same person as Gandt09 (talk·contribs) — of exactly the same content that was deleted first via BLP Proposed Deletion and then again via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Howes (actor) only a week ago. This is what the ((deleteagain)) tag is for, Peridon. Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To date, a minor actor whose most notable part is a Second Footman. May well have a successful future (and I wish him luck), but time is not yet for Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deletion. WWGB (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon. Needs better referencing - and that will only be possible with more performances and recording so that there is independent coverage. I wish the band good luck (needed in the music business...) and hope to see an article again. (No, not next week...) Peridon (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No claim to significance made. --Triwbe (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources, and no serious claim of significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I think this company meets our notability criteria. The sources cited are sufficient, and it is possible to find out more in reliable media, see G-News archives, Draft Magazine etc. Bruery is a small but notable brewery. The article is written in a slightly promotional tone, but this is in my opinion fixable. It was created by a new user who is not yet familiar with important wiki policies. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Bruery has been profiled in the LA Times, The Orange County Register, Brew Your Own Magazine, The New York Times, and dozens of other newspapers, magazines, and radio shows. The author of the article may not know what they're doing when adding citations, but that doesn't mean The Bruery isn't notable.Sanfernandocourt (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Spammy ("The standard of concrete on the Isle of Man was steadily rising due to Rural Industries Ltd", "who continues to suply a wide range of pre cast concrete products") article about a non-notable company, placed by someone with the same family name as the company owner. Speedy tag removed without explanation by an anonymous user in the Isle Of Man, which is where the company is based. I42 (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this article for speedy deletion under the A7 criterion, because I feel that the article does not make a credible claim of significance. -- Lear'sFool 12:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only independent reference I can find is the third one in the refs section (ABC news) and the subject only gets a passing mention in that article. Karenjc 09:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Could not find references, and the references cited in the article do not support the content. (In particular, reference 3 does not mention WikiDoc at all.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
People where not notified before deletion. Thus I have restored this until a more full discussion has taken place. The nominator work on / for a competing website. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn; no standing delete votes. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK - all outside mentions from reliable sources that I can find are trivial, mentions in passing. Only inbound link is the author's article. Perhaps a redirect to Nonie Darwish is in order, but this clearly doesn't merit its own article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Withdraw my nomination in light of sources added by article creator. It's a shame that you could find only one non-partisan source that discusses the book in any substantial detail, but the EI source proves that people other than proponents have taken notice of it, so it juuuust squeaks by. I'll be keeping an eye on the article though, so please, no more shenanigans. No lifting quotes from articles that never mention the book and claiming they're glowing reviews, and no pretending that "book tour" is a taboo phrase that obliges us to perform complicated exegesis on the news. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Curious as where the nominator was looking for sources. This very Wikipedia article lists three sources in which the book is the integral - if not main - subject of all three. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 16:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wasn't true when I nominated it and it isn't true now. "Here is an interview with Nonie Darwish, we'll mention in passing that she wrote a book" does not make the book the subject of the interview - the interview would be a good source for the article on Darwish. Most of the references you added have the same problem - they mention the book in passing, but don't discuss it in any substantial way that would qualify for WP:NBOOK. (If you could provide a source that directly says the book was the cause of her disinvitation from Brown University, rather than articles on her disinvitation that mention that she wrote a book, that might be notable.) The "Brave Infidels" article doesn't appear even to mention the book, in contrast to your citing it as a comment on the book. (I will edit that out right now. Don't quote people saying things they didn't say.) The Theory and Practice of Islamic Terrorism looks like a good source, but it isn't exactly "multiple," and it would be nice if you could find other reviews that weren't partisan. The Spokesman-Review is paywalled. Anyway, I'll leave it to the other editors to vote. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator has twice removed one of the sources in which the book was reviewed,[10][11] but due to our edit-warring policies, I will not re-add it to the article, and instead mention it here. This 2007 review discussed a 2006 book written by Nonie Darwish. From the context, and especially after all the comparisons to the other reviews, it is clear that the book being reviewed is Now They Call Me Infidel. Removing the source because it does say explicitly the book's name smacks of wikilawyering at its worse.--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 18:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the source was a review of the book, it would presumably mention the book's name, or the fact that the author wrote the book, or some of the content of the book. To claim that an article which makes no mention of this book - nor indeed of any other Darwish book - is a "review"? That's the height of original research. Do try a bit harder. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brewcrewer forgets to mention that none of the sources state or even imply that Darwish was disinvited because of the book. The paragraph belongs in the article on Darwish, where I put it and from which Brewcrewer then removed it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true. The speeches were part of the book tour for this specific book. This much is made quite clear by the sources. You want to nominate it for deletion, fine, but don't try to ruin the article at the same time. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 21:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "quite clear," you should be able to provide a quote that says so. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(od) Okay, so I spent time getting the exact words that establish the nexus between the book and the protests. The following quotes from the sources discussing the speaking controversy that you removed make it clear that the speaking controversy was a result of, if not closely intertwined with, the book she published:
[13]"In part to drive home that point, she wrote a book, just out. Its title says it all: “Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror.”
[14] "Given that Darwish is the author of the recently released book, 'Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror'...."
[15] Last year she was banned from the campus of Brown University, in Rhode Island, one of America's most prestigious academic institutions. The speaking invitation came jointly from a Jewish student group and the women's studies department, but was abruptly withdrawn, allegedly after pressure from Brown's Muslim chaplain, who claimed that Darwish had made anti-Islamic remarks and that her presence would be provocative. The university's female, Christian, chaplain backed the ban, although it was pointed out that she had promoted an earlier Palestinian solidarity week. The inevitable row catapulted the affair - and the book - into the headlines.
[16]"...and authored the recently published book Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror. She joined the growing ranks of Muslim-born individuals - many of them not coincidentally women, including Irshad Manji, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan - speaking out against Islamic extremism at significant personal risk.."
[17] "Darwish, who has written a book, Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror, became particularly impassioned when speaking about the treatment of women in the Arab Muslim world"
All the above linked sources discuss her speaking controversy in the context of the book. I suppose we can further wikilawyer and argue that none of the sources it say it explicitly that the brouhaha was related to the book, but I'll let the quotes speak for themselves, and hopefully speak to the neutral and objective reader of this discussion.--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 21:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You call it wikilawyering - I call it one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. If you have a problem with the fundamental policies of this site, why are you here? I'm sure there are many lesser sites that would love to have a piece of original research on a non-notable book. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—book covered by numerous reliable third-party sources in a non-trivial manner. The nominator's rationale might've been correct upon nomination (AGF), but after the sources provided here and in the article, it fails. —Ynhockey(Talk) 00:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the book has been discussed in numerous reliable sources.Sanfernandocourt (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top, it only taking a second, and you can see dozens of places that review this book. Remember, always SEARCH BEFORE YOU NOMINATE. It saves time for the rest of us. DreamFocus 10:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed searched. Please review WP:NBOOK - passing mentions like "Nonie Darwish, who is the author of..." are trivial coverage and do not qualify. Read the rules, and save time for the rest of us. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you'll get far more reviews using only the title, instead of the title+subtitle.[18] --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 16:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting more hits, but still very little substantial coverage in reliable sources. No newspaper or mainstream magazine appears ever to have reviewed this book. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current version of the article only barely hints at it, but there is some indication that this word might be a notable one, and that there's enough sources to justify an article about its history and significance. Its notoriety (in South African English, at least) appears to derive from a controversial use by Jacob Zuma in a 2006 speech, criticizing same-sex marriage. Evidently this led to significant controversy, and coverage that seems to have continued. References turn up at Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar.[19][20][21] I would be interested, in particular, in opinions from editors with South African expertise, as to whether there's enough out there to support this article as part of Category:Pejorative terms for people and/or Category:Zulu words and phrases.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article was deleted back in 2008. Since its recreation, it has been nominated for CSD-G12 and CSD-G4. The G12 was declined, one admin declined the G4, and one admin (myself) accepted the G4. Since there seem to be questions regarding the G4, and in fact the notability of the subject, the suggestion was made to bring it to the community. The main issue seems to be WP:N, so it's being nominated here as non-notable. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:34, 14 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 00:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. No evidence of additional notability since it was last deleted, and it's written with a rather nasty POV ("Most Internet services, including chatrooms, are filled with people that have no intent of helping others") Geez. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems N, and poorly written isn't a matter for AfD. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there any evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? --Pnm (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps FSDaily or Linux Today. Furthermore, ClueBot has been mentioned in many papers (Google Scholar it), and by a few news stories. A subset of ClueNet runs/develops the ClueBots, as well. My $0.02. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 05:33, 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, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with notability needs establishing with refs - I tagged obvious problems Widefox (talk) 16:26, 2 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 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. Courcelles 05:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 06:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a coat rack advertisement for Refinance.com. No explanation for why this one person is "special" Hasteur (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to have been nothing more than an attempt to make the deleted entry for Refinance.com appear legitimate, and the links to that page from List of Seton Hall University alumni and Seton Hall University School of Law as "Notable alumni" seem to have been added for the same reason. --Mvandemar (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Oops, didn't realize the creator had a page on here. I change my !vote to speedy redirect now (even though that article needs serious work). ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JIP | Talk 06:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
… plus the two cited sources do not actually support any of the content that they are purported to support. They in fact exist only to supply quotations of an idiom in use, in classic dictionary style. Then there's the tagging of the article for Project:WikiProject Psychology. It's somewhat amusing, and rather saddening, that someone foolishly thought that there's a concrete concept in the world of psychology by this name. But we've had these problems since 2005 in the nutter article (which has, unfortunately, had the baby thrown out with the bathwater recently). Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a small correction to that page. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Courcelles 05:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the artist doesn't meet notability for a musician. Note Michael Cleveland did contain mostly the same content -- it is now a redirect and should be deleted concurrently. Also note the early speedy delete that was blanked. Ariconte (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The awards highlighted and referenced in the article indicate notability in his field; so too does his biography on Allmusic: "one of the hottest attractions in bluegrass", "prestigious", etc. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I listed the article here because I did not find references to help it meet the guidelines in WP:MUSICBIO. Please improve it. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article might be poorly referenced, but reliable sources are available, and article should be saved.Sanfernandocourt (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find any coverage of this individual that suggests sufficient significance to satisfy the general or biographical notability guidelines. Wilks received a little coverage here (similar post here), and had an interview here, but nothing in reliable sources. Factiva returns 0 results. -- Lear'sFool 05:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the long list of posts held suggests that he is of some significance, but I would feel more confident if there was an article on the church in Newark, where he is an associate minister. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was suspicious of the promotional tone of the article back when the author first created it. Since then it's become quite evident that behind it is a single-purpose account, and very likely in a conflict of interest. The notability is highly suspect too: the long list of titles and positions only tells me he's successful, not necessarily notable. -- Ϫ 09:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, although Metropolitan Baptist Church (Newark) could probably do with an article if it is the largest church in Newark. JASpencer (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. After ignoring the army of socks, we're left with a clear delete consensus. Courcelles 05:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I can't find significant coverage of this company in reliable sources to meet WP:CORP or WP:N Although the article is puffed up, it is based off of primary sources, advertising pieces, and passing mentions. Overall nothing within the text or the sources evidences notability. ThemFromSpace 04:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those 2 passing mentions and the bare-bones profile hardly constitute "significant coverage". ThemFromSpace 01:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that the Inc. "profile" is, in fact, a bare-bones mention in a rolling list, and not remotely the feature article AkankshaG and Sandfernandocourt imply that it is. The other two cites Akanksha raises are likewise passing mentions; this particular company is neither the subject of, nor discussed in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, in either. The other cites in the article, which look superficially good, are either likewise passing mentions or fail to be reliable sources. That being said, would Sanfernandocourt care to explain what makes this a bad faith nomination? Anything beyond that he disagrees with it, or the implication that someone who describes himself as a "deletionist" must by definition have malicious intent? I am sure, for example, that he would not care himself to be characterized as having made a "bad faith keep" simply because he erroneously conflates a mention on Inc.'s website into a feature article in the magazine? Ravenswing 06:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Phearson (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm AkankshaG's argument about "deletionist means article is good" is tough to take. There are the three sources given, but Inc is minimal, the CSM article is acceptable, and the Press Democrat article is onyl 50% about CJ Environmental. I thought perhaps the news articles would be under "CashforGoldUSA", but that just shows a press release and makes me suspect this is a company strong in marketing and capturing a current meme, not a company truly satisfying WP:GNG, not to mention taking advantage of the Cash4Gold name. So I say delete. Admittedly, about 50% of my !vote is my gut feel and because I worked on creating the Cash4Gold article, about 50% of it is based on Wikipedia guidelines. tedder (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, all passing mentions from sources that don't deal much with this particular company. None of these provide in-depth coverage of the company. ThemFromSpace 04:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AkrankshaG. I hate the commercials for these companies, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable. I easily found two articles about them in Inc. and the Press Democrat and Monitor articles mentioned. All of this and the Fox 5 broadcast means this subject fits what we ask for in WP:GNG and WP:CORP. CPerked (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its funny how all these new accounts are swarming in here to !vote "keep", just like at the last AfD of one of AkankshaG's articles. I smell meatpuppets. ThemFromSpace 04:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Considering that SharedPlanetType and CPerked were created within two days of one another in September, and were largely silent until they entered a burst of AfDs yesterday and today, I think a checkuser is very much in order. Ravenswing 17:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concern I have my suspicions regarding her, Ciplex and a connection to Mywikibiz. But I am waiting for her to come back and and respond on her talk page before going to the community. Should AkankshaG be involved in the CU? Phearson (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would think so, his editing is very fishy. He hasn't done much lately besides create and maintain promotional articles. ThemFromSpace 21:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sockies ahoy! The following accounts are Confirmed as being the same editor;
Note An ANI has began regarding this AfD and bunch of other not-fun stuffs regarding AkankshaG and the Meaty/Socky puppets. Phearson (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Fox 5 report, the Christian Science Monitor,Press Democrat, and the two Inc. Magazine articles, all of which substantially talk about their company, seem like reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunalroy85 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note Per request, this page is now semi-protected against our voting-box stuffers. It is advised that the closer scrutinize votes made by users with little or no editing history. Phearson (talk) 03:59, 4 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. This one seems to be a hard decision as far as the conclusion that the editors have come to, but I, in any sense, do not see a consensus, and the original nominator has withdrawn the nomination. This discussion has been taking place since 12/18 and there hasn't been any discussion since the 28th. Time to close. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 19:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Software package. No evidence of having been mentioned in independent publications.Insufficient number of independent publications discussing BOUML to be able to expand this into an encyclopedic article. See below. Originally created by the author of the package (this version has already been deleted previously) and now apparently part of some external drama. —Ruud 16:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's an ongoing search for reliable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BOUML. Please do not close this AfD before a consensus have been reached there. Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please clarify, where is the discussion about the deletion, here or on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BOUML ?
I don't understand too the reason of the deletion request, do you ask for a deletion request of article each time you disagree with references placed inside ?
Furthermore a deletion request is already on going on the french version, what is the interest to do two times the same work at the same time ? Seems better to wait for the result of the first one and decide here, no ?
Best regards. Bruno pages (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I had not yet noticed the discussion at the discussion board regarding potential sources for this article. I believe this articles should likely be deleted nonetheless, so I have not retracted my proposal for deletion. Note that the English-language and French-language are nearly independent communities with slightly different ideas of which subjects are suitable for an encyclopedic article and which are not. The decision on the article being deleted or kept on the French-language Wikipedia has no direct influence on it being deleted or kept on the English-language Wikipedia and vice versa. Regard, —Ruud 22:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you didn't answer to the first question nor the second, this will not help next readers. It is really useless for you to say you hope the deletion of the articles, you asked for the deletion and in the associated discussion you consider all to be irrelevant. I wish you an happy witch hunt. Bruno pages (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about deletion takes place here.
I feel this article should be deleted, because there do not exist enough independent sources that would allow us to write an encyclopedic article. An encyclopedic article should be able to grow beyond something stating more than "Subject X exists."
ok, we progress, now please can you clarify these two other topics
about originally created by the author of the package (this version has already been deleted previously), the deletion request applies to the current article or the old article removed 3 years ago ? I don't understand why you speak about the deleted article, please can you explain ?
If I well understand, referring to the reason of the deletion request no evidence of having been mentioned in independent publications, the deletion of the article will be made if Bouml is not mentioned in independent publications. When I look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BOUML it is obvious Bouml is mentioned in a lot of independent publications, in this case why this deletion request is still open ?
Regards, Bruno pages (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure, any previous deletions or requests for deletions should be made aware to anyone wishing to participate in this discussion.
I do not feel these source provide enough information to write anything beyond "BOUML exists". Clearly, this is not enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia.
This deletion request is still open because seven days have not yet passed, see the guidelines. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately no progress this time ;-).
I still don't understand in what the history of the old article has an impact on the quality/content/utility/... of the current article made without reusing the material of the old one. Do you mean because the previous article I written as been deleted I am a kind of disease and I infected the current article ?
Perhaps my English is not good enough, but again the reason of the deletion speak about the fact Bouml is mentioned or not, and your second answer speak about something different.
Please don't take that as a personal attack, but I think this deletion request is absolutely unclear, it must be clarified. Note I don't know if the rules of wikipedia allow to modify the reasons of a deletion request or if you need to stop this one and do a new one.
Regards Bruno pages (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an article has previously been deleted and then subsequently recreated, then anyone participating in this discussion will probably want to see if the reasons for deleting still hold or not and take this into account when formulating their opinion and arguments.
Unlike many peoples first impression the Wikipedia is far from a bureaucracy, but rather informal. In this case I gave a reason for why I felt this article should be deleted. Other people might disagree with me and give their reasons for this, or they might believe the article should be deleted for completely different reasons. At the end (in a few days time) the whole discussion and all arguments made are evaluated together to reach a conclusion.
When I said "mentioned BOUML", I meant "gives a significant discussion of BOUML". This is what we need to be able to write an informative and neutral encyclopedic article on BOUML as opposed to merely recognizing its existence. Noone here is disputing that BOUML exists and is used, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of software products. There needs to be something interesting to tell to justify the existence of an article. —Ruud 16:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably definitively too stupid to understand the first dot, in this case why to not speak about more/all the deletions done on wikipedia and probably youngest that 3 years old ? The third dot says it is dangerous to trust on wikipedia articles : an expert knowing a domain writes an article/tool/etc, as a primary source he can't speak about that on wikipedia, a second people try to understand the subject but referring to a primary source again he can't do that on wikipedia, finally a third people try to understand what the second people tried to understand from the expert's production and places the result in wikipedia, brrrr, fasten your seatbelts ;-). Bruno pages (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary seems to be right. You and BOUML itself are primary sources. Independent secondary sources can be written about those. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia are tertiary sources, summarizing the secondary sources. The problem is that there seem to be too few secondary sources to summarize into an encyclopedic article. —Ruud 18:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain to me why User:Dereckson marked the delete request as WP:AUTO on my talk page talk ?
I don't think this article is autobiographical. Firstly it is about software package and not about a sentient being, secondly it was started
by an independent author User:af1n. - af1n—Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Lacks the independent reliable sources required to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please hold on! There are many sources, just give me more time to google them out! af1n 01:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Close With the papers af1n found, I think we should be able to write an article. —Ruud 02:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Articles for deletion, Lotje has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding ((subst:Smile)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 03:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am curious to see what the community thinks. This article, and the associated List of Chabad Houses in Israel, is completely unverified and, in my opinion, falls foul of WP:NOTDIR: none of these individual houses appears to be notable in its own right, unlike, say, List of synagogues in the United States. The URLs added to a number of these entries do not make it any less of a directory; on the contrary. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether lists like this are common on Wikipedia or not. But when you write that "none of these individual houses appears to be notable in its own right" it may be that you not familiar with Chabad houses. Many of them are notable in their own right, at least, like large churches they erect multi-million dollar buildings, attract thousands of people ot their programs, get profiled in newspapers and books, and so forth. More of them ought to to have Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.E.Moeller (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of synagogues to avoid duplicate lists and WP:LISTCRUFT and because all Chabad houses are basically synagogues, first and foremost, headed by rabbis and their wives. Chabad houses are important, often the only Jewish places of worship and respite in a wide region. Each Chabad house should be matched to the country on the List of synagogues. IZAK (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. The whole reason "List of Chabad houses" is a problem is because basically none of them are notable enough to have their own articles, making the list a linkfarm. That problem wouldn't be solved by merging to "List of synagogues." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In many cases, Chabad houses are the only Jewish life - certainly Orthodox Jeiwish life - in that location, and are a large percentage of the Jewish life in the entire country. Sometimes, however, there is little to say about the place except that it exists. Chabad itself is certainly notable; there are plenty of references to it in sources outside the Jewish community. (I do not know if there was anything notable about the Chabad House in Mumbai, but terroritsts seem to have thought it important enough to target - I think that says something in and of itself.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzk1 (talk • contribs) [22]
Note - I am not commenting on whether this should be merged or not, as long as nothing is deleted.Mzk1 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a directory, none are otherwise notable. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In Canada, Chabad houses are important for Orthodox Jews. Only in Montreal city, we have 21 Chabad Houses . I believe it's same importance in Toronto urbain and Vancouver. I know the Chabad houses works hard to plan with great Jewish events in differents Campus in Canada: Meet, greet, eat and socialize with other Jewish in a warm atmosphere. Enjoy and kiss for all --Geneviève (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Genevieve: Thanks for your comments, but you are creating more problems by stating that there are at least 21 Chabad houses in Montreal. Hopefully you do not expect, and are not implying, that each of those is "notable" and should be "listed" individually because usually what happens is that there is the first and main Chabad house in a city or town and from that branches keep on sprouting. It would be a direct violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY to list every last Chabad house on Earth, that following your math, would run into the thousands eventually which would be absurd. Perhaps there could be an article about History of Chabad in Montreal that could then cover all aspects of Chabad life that would include noting some Chabad houses, but it would be far-fetched to claim that every last of the 21 Montreal Chabad houses qualify as WP:NOTABLE when there are dozens of other synagogues of all denominations in Montreal as in every city that do not and should not get articles or be put on WP lists. Kindly note that Wikipedia is not Chabad.org to violate WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UNDUE. Thanks for your understanding, IZAK (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oupssss sorry to violate.... I am very sorry. Thank you for your opinion Izak and sorry for my big error. I am new person among you in English Wikipedia (only 19 day). I spoke honestly about the movement generally, not 1 or 20 or 102 each Chabad House. I will thank so much for your suggestion for writing a Wiki page History of Chabad in Montreal: it is very important project but I am very incompetent to write on. Because first I am Reconstructionist and second I am very busy at present with my project page User:Genevieve2/sandbox07 and many Bibliography of Women Rabbis on Wikipedia . תודה Thank --Geneviève (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have just added short artocles for Chabad of Bangkok and Chabad of Venice. There are men, many notable Chabad houses that should have articles.User:A.E.Moeller —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Hi A.E.Moeller: See my response at User talk:A.E.Moeller#Redundant and poorly written articles. Because it's important and pertains to this subject I will repost what I wrote to you: Thank you for your recent contributions. I have read what you wrote but you have created very poorly written, repetitious WP:STUBs that go nowhere and say the same thing relating to Chabad houses. In the process you are violating WP:CONTENTFORKING and it even looks like you are spamming Wikipedia violating WP:ADVERT with a few sentences about a couple of Chabad houses just to get them mentioned on WP. Note, Wikipedia is not Chabad.org, as per WP:NOTADVERT. As they stood, the sparse repetative stubs would never have survived, so I have done you and the articles a favor by moving all content and citations as well doing some needed WP:COPYEDITing and saving them by WP:REDIRecting them as follows:
Please DO NOT create more stubs that just say the same thing over and over again because that will only open the door to WP:AFDs. Please feel free to stay in touch with me or to get more input from other Judaic editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM BEFORE you create masses of repetitious articles almost overnight. Thanks again and best wishes, IZAK (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Drmies. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect as ISAK has just suggested in the main article , Chabad house. It is very unlikely under present rules that most of the individual ones would be individually notable, though a few are likely to be. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 2 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 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.
This seems to have no sources which substantiate that it is notable according to our guidelines. It has no book results for the term. Previous nomination didn't get enough votes. Alternately, redirect to Bede Griffiths. He seems to be notable, but the the term "Wisdom Christianity" doesn't even appear in this book about him, or this one. So it's pretty clear it isn't notable. BE——Critical__Talk 03:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a lack of sources; the "most famous church" subscribing to this thought has a red link; the article does not have much to say about the movement. Generally, this doesn't seem notable enough here at this point. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 05:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which redlink is that? Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See what I wrote further on about the encyclopaedist's equivalent of not looking beyond the end of one's nose, too. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ:τᴀʟĸ 07:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For no reason? Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's because, like the nominator, you didn't read the books already helpfully cited at the bottom of the article to find out the actual name of the subject. Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The actual names of this subject, discoverable through reading some of the several books pointed-to at the bottom of the article, and documented in several other books to boot, are the Christian Ashram Movement and Christian sannyasa. Use the handy little tool ⇗ and read all about it. This is a perfectly valid subject, documented in books that link all of the people mentioned in the "see also" section of the article together under its umbrella, and the article at the time of nomination even pointed to sources from which could be found what it was actually called. Some of those books are even encyclopaedias (such as Fahlbusch's Encyclopaedia of Christianity, volume 2, for example). It merely needs renaming to one or other of the titles, from this title (which is the product of misunderstanding a WWW source it seems). I prefer the first title, since the second seems to be used more when talking about Abhishiktananda and seems to be the less generally used name. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. Did you know that already or are you just a perceptive researcher? BE——Critical__Talk 05:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that I always employ the amnesia test, per User:Uncle G/On notability#Tips for editors, anyway, I'd never heard of this until the article came up at AFD. I just looked through one of the books pointed to in the external links section of the article at the time of nomination — the first book listed, no less — did a very simple keyword search and found the name of the movement right there on page 235. You can see with the handy little tool ⇗ what knowing the name leads to. The clues were right there in the article, and my pointing out how the proper name of the subject is discoverable is based upon how I discovered it.
Personally, I wouldn't leave a redirect behind at Wisdom Christianity.
I find it ironic that Backtable wanted to delete the article simply because another article on a related subject was a redlink (and this article wasn't finished with comprehensive coverage of the subject, yet). Aside from the fact that it was not a redlink when I wrote the above, that bespeaks of zero effort on Backtable's part in doing the research necessary at AFD. Xe clearly did not even put the name of that (then) redlink into a search engine. Hoping that a linked article will explain things is the encyclopaedist's equivalent of not looking beyond the end of one's nose. We're supposed to be the people writing this encyclopaedia, which we know not to be complete yet. So we look outside of it for sources and information. That amount of research is a basic standard for being an encyclopaedist. As noted, this article even pointed to some of the things outwith the encyclopaedia to start by looking at. The irony is compounded by the fact that the article now contains more redlinks, indicating that not only is this a valid subject but that there are a few more valid subjects, that not only don't we yet have but apparently we didn't even know that we didn't have.
Keep - notable based on sources provided after nomination - then move over Christian Ashram Movement, which gets about 714 Google books hits compared to about 91 on Christian sannyasa. The article is primarily about the movement, with discussion about the practices a secondary topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aymatth2 and Uncle G.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on new info. Thanks Uncle G! — goetheanॐ 16:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't thank me. Thank 69.86.78.34 (talk·contribs) for doing this and providing the clues — some seven months before the first time that this was nominated for deletion. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Christian Ashram Movement, the title that appears in the lead, and is currently a redirect to this article. This would result in this article being a redirect to that. However, the present title is misleading and the redirect should thus be deleted. Reverence for Hindu texts suggests that the movement has elements of syncretism with Hinduism. I have to dispute that is the result of "wisdom"; personally I regard it as folly. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support deleting the redirect after the move. A book search does not find the term. A web search gives various different personal definitions of "Wisdom Christianity". It does not seem to be a recognized theological term. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is fairly clear-cut. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 04:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the redirect from Wisdom Christianity, which is not a reasonable search term
Any disagreement? I suppose steps 2. and 3. could be preceded by separate debates, but I don't think there is a need. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that there's a need for separate debates, but otherwise I think this is a fair description of the consensus. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 16:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and thanks people for the research (: BE——Critical__Talk 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found some sources here and here. I made no assertion in the 1st AfD of how useful they were, and "voted" very weak keep, as I do again. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Searches do show the two words Wisdom and Christianity occurring one after the other in many sources, usually separated by a comma or period. Occasionally, they are used to define a concept as in "... that I would call 'Wisdom Christianity', by which I mean ..." There is no consistency of meaning in these coinages. It is not an accepted theological term, making it a poor title even for a redirect. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:28, 4 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 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.
There is nothing in the article, aside form it's title, that explains what it is, why it is, and of what use it could be.
There's no background subject text to connect to other than the topics of erotic depictions as a whole, or the history of erotic photographs. There are no articles which discuss the gender differences in erotic photographs.
It might as well be "list of photographers known to have depicted male nudity", given it's state.
It is indiscriminate
Does it deal with artistic studies of figure, or glamour photography, or pornography? The net is too wide.
It is untenable
If made comprehensive, this article would include more photographers than most categories, it would become so large as to be unnavigatable
It is completely uncited
There is no complementary "list of photographers known for portraying females erotically" (not that that list wouldn't share many of the same problems) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I agree with the reasoning in the nomination, I think that the points in the first two bullet are answerable. However, as this article has existed for quite some time and no editor has made an effort to deal with these obvious deficiencies, the article should be deleted. TheMindsEye (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the nomination. 1. There is nothing in the article, aside form it's title, that explains what it is, why it is, and of what use it could be. True. / 2. It is indiscriminate[.] Does it deal with artistic studies of figure, or glamour photography, or pornography? The net is too wide. True again. / 3. It is untenable[.] If made comprehensive, this article would include more photographers than most categories, it would become so large as to be unnavigatable[.] / I shouldn't have thought that it would become so very long, unless there have been many hacks working in "beefcake" and male porn industries and some editor or editors diligently added them. 4. It is completely uncited[.] Yes, this is a problem. It's a problem shared by most lists. (And this is not another "other-crap-exists" argument; rather, it's an expression of an "other-crap-too-should-be-improved" PoV.) It's a problem ignored in much categorization too. Related to gay erotica, I often see people categorized as "LGBT" or "gay" this or that, with no mention or sourcing in the article. 5. There is no complementary "list of photographers known for portraying females erotically"[...] Very true, but to my mind not a problem at all. Face it, iconolagny (being turned on by "sexy" pictures or other imagery) is largely male, and males are largely hetero, and thus we have centuries (millennia) of art (or porn) of women in flimsy or no clothing. It's the male stuff that's unusual. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. As I look at the first AfD, I get the impression that the preservation of the article had little support, and that the main proponent of preservation (the creator and/or main editor) was open to the idea of conversion to a category. However, as noted above, the subject area isn't clear. If it can be clarified and if somebody can do the sorting (not me, as I know next to nothing about these matters and confess to a lack of interest), then conversion into one or more categories seems a good idea. -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone, in this AFD or the previous one, would object to an article dealing on the topic of male erotica; in fact, there were quite cogent argument arguments for that in the previous nomination. However, such an article would still be orthogonal to this list. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLUB says that "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article." No evidence that the Massachusetts chapter is independently notable. Nothing links to the page except the main NARAL page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main NARAL article. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Heck, I'm on the organization's rolls, but I agree the state chapter has no independent notability. Ravenswing 22:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - Schrandit (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable professor. No independent references. No noted achievements. The mentioned conlang is itself nonnotable. Kaligelos (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing any of the criteria of WP:PROF. There are a few hits for him in Google news, but I don't think they discuss him in sufficiently non-trivial detail to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no actual publication besides his thesis and some online workbooks.Disgracefully, it's been here since 2007. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! A friend told me you want to delete "me". That's fine with me. But in defense of my work, the online textbooks are not workbooks but full-fledged textbooks used in many colleges around the world. Plus, "Personality Theories" may actually have been the first totally free, no advertisements, textbook ever (1997), predating Wikipedia. Oddly, Wikipedia references my textbooks once in a while (no, I didn't do it myself!). But I know, you don't get famous (or rich) by giving things away for nothing, so delete away! :-) Cgboeree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLUB says that "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article." PPIA is an arm of a state-level organization - since even the state-level organization isn't apparently notable enough to have its own article, why should the political arm? (Also, literally nothing links to it, so it wouldn't be missed.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no extensive coverage. [23]. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this arm of a state level organization is notable it really belongs in an article about the state level organization. Nitack (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Planned Parenthood: WP:SPAM with no actual claim of notability for a subsidiary of another non-notable subsidiary, either of Planned Parenthood Action Fund (which does not have its own article), or of Planned Parenthood of Illinois, which was also created by Caitib (talk·contribs), and which I think I'll start off with WP:CSD#A7 (organization with no assertion of notability) and go from there. --Closeapple (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - Schrandit (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't bother with a redirect. It's a branch of a branch of a national organization. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus that, as of now, what we have here is worthy only of inclusion in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a dictionary article, Most of the text in the articles don't have a valid reference. The total content shown in the Educational institutions are not sourced and possibly Wikipedia:NOT#OR, Can be concluded in the dictionary like this Achayan : Call name for elder brothers in christian family of kerala ...Captain......Tälk tö me 14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; textbook example of an article that belongs in a dictionary. PowersT 14:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some editing but it surely deserves a space in wikipedia. It is about a group of people in India and their origin, culture etc. The article needs to be improved by adding more details and information.117.196.156.162 (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is only a dictionary articles with cooked up stories and boosting of of that to get it fitted into an encyclopedia it can see as Wikipedia:NOT#OR, and the above IP is linking the articles to non relevant sections of articles Contribution, Edit without sources.--...Captain......Tälk tö me 12:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The presented sources show that the term is nothing more than, e.g., "father" in addressing to clergy. Kaligelos (talk) 02:39, 28 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, LFaraone 02:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepThere is lot to be added to this article. Its not just a dictionary article. The term is used only by Syrian Christians and that too from the erstwhile Travancore Kingdom. It not just denotes brother or father.Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you give us some examples of information that could be added to make this more encyclopedic? PowersT 20:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, No evidences...100% fiction, single line reference in some books (Meaning) can be included in dictionary....--...Captain......Tälk tö me... 07:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Even after discounting the last three "keep" opinions for not making arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, there is no consensus about whether there are sufficient sources for this topic. Sandstein 10:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You mean the inline citations come from websites and suchlike, but the article is referenced by published material about this language. Just out of curiosity, upon what do you base your charge of WP:NOR violation? Ravenswing 06:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what published material are you basing this opinion on? Neither of the claimed sources in the "references" section has enough detail in the citations to be able to track down what they actually are. Are they books? Peer-reviewed journal articles? Any chance of ISBNs or other information to identify them? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We've been through all this before. This is a well-respected proposed IAL, as a cursory review of constructed language sites and discussion groups, including Wikipedia's own "WikiProject Constructed languages", clearly demonstrate. It is nicely presented, complete, with inline references, links, etc. It does not proselytize. It has an ISO code. It has a couple of print mentions, and if it is primarily an internet phenomenon, well, welcome to the twenty-first century! Oh, I should mention that there are many translations, original works, and articles on its well-run Wikia site. Thank you! Cgboeree (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all very well, but can you point to any significant coverage in independent reliable sources? And please, Cgboeree, could you let us know whether you have any conflict of interest here, such as, for example, being the creator of this language? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original creator. Many others have contributed to it, some much more than I. I wasn't aware that I was not permitted to add my opinion. The last time someone went after the article, I was told that these votes aren't really votes, but rather a succinct way of indicating one's position. My apologies. Cgboeree (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I forget, you asked about the two articles: Contraste is a German left-wing newspaper. Invented Languages is a journal edited by Richard Harrison, who is a widely respected "auxlanger" (and not associated with LFN in any way). Cgboeree (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're perfectly entitled to express your opinion, but it's considered best practice to declare any personal interest in a subject, so thanks for doing so. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Indeed, this is definitely one of the best known, most appreciated and most active IALs of our times. The two references are okay, but I'm sure there must be more. If so, I'd suggest adding them. On a sidenote, this is of course no argument for deletion, but I do have the impression that the article is excessively long. BTW, only today I noticed that there is also a (much older, but completely obscure) project called Lingua Franca Nuova! Regards, —IJzeren JanUszkiełtu? 13:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should split the article into separate pieces such as "Lingua Franca Nova phonology" and "Lingua Franca Nova grammar", just like the Esperanto articles? :-) Cgboeree (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link! It's incredible: when you think you've seen everything... :) As for splitting the article, mind, I was just giving my opinion. But indeed, it might be a good idea. IMO language descrptions shouldn't contain a complete grammar, word lists etc. Cheers, —IJzeren JanUszkiełtu? 22:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone close this nomination to delete, please? The first nomination to delete had nine people against deletion and only one for deletion. (No, I didn't vote at all, although the nominator did accuse me of "sockpuppetry" - something I hadn't even heard of till then!) Since the consensus was clearly to keep the article, an administrator finally intervened with "keep" (and then changed it to "no consensus" after the original nominator personally appealed to him!). Now another person has nominated to delete. I would think that once is enough, wouldn't you? You have no idea how disheartening for honest contributors it is to go through this. Cgboeree (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I still don't see any independent reliable sources. It is claimed above that the sources in Contraste and Invented Languages are sufficient for notability, but neither of those seem to be stocked by anyone other than the obligatory national archives,[24][25] so can hardly be claimed to be meet our requirements for verifiable reliable sourcing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep! I don't understand much of all this debate as english isn't my current language and I'm pretty bad in computer science. But I understand even less of the point of deleting such a beautiful and honest and so useful work of not only one passionate man by quite a lot now all over the world. Thank you for beeing cute! (Patrick Chevin) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.124.53.110 (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep! Pardonnez-moi d'écrire en français. La Lingua Franca Nova ne mérite pas cet ostracisme ou ce bannissement. Wikipedia se doit d'informer le public sur l'existence de cette langue remarquable tant par ses qualités que par sa vitalité. Son site Wikia est très documenté. Je ne comprends pas l'utilité d'une telle censure. D'autres langues construites à vocation internationale ont leur place dans Wikipedia, alors que leur vitalité est moindre. Sunido 09:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of all the constructed languages that exist, Lingua Franca Nova shows the most potential to become a truly universal language. It is easy to read and understand and after a relatively short time it is possible to actually speak the language. Esperanto has achieved a degree of success which is well documented, but LFN is easier to learn and a more effective means of communication. At a time when the European Community is debating the possibility of using one common language, LFN is certainly a language that should seriously be considered. I would have thought that far from shunning the language, Wikipedia would have realised the potential of LFN and would have supported it wholeheartedly. LFN continues to grow and it is important that it has as many opportunities to reach a world audience as possible, the sort of exposure that Wikipedia is capable of providing. Who knows in the future if LFN should continue to progress as it has and becomes a truly international language, Wikipedia could quite rightly claim to have assisted in making this happen. --Guido Crufio (talk) 10:05, 6 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are discounted as unconvincing because (like the article) they do not cite any actual sources, but only assert that sources exist, which is not sufficient in the light of WP:BURDEN. Sandstein 10:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources found for this term — only mentions are on forums and other unreliable venues. Examples are completely arbitrary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Please allow me to respectfully disagree. I am afraid your opinion was misformed by google, which indeed throws a lot of garbage unto you, so that you have to "pixel-hunt" the reliable info :-) (or, if you like, needle in a haystack). At the same time Google Books do show hits for reasonably reliable sources, also here, therefore I conclude the article is salvageable. Kaligelos (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Your Google Books search shows only false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would share your metaphorical needle with us? Or more importantly, incorporate that into the article. I'm afraid your interpretation of "salvageable" may not necessarily correspond to Wikipedia notability guidelines. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a famous term in computer gaming. I did find real mentions in the Google Books search that User:Kaligelos provided. JIP | Talk 06:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are indeed "mention" that do not discuss the term in more than a sentence. This is not enough for a whole article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm personally familiar with the term, but at the moment the article is a one-line dictionary definition followed up with five paragraphs of OR. Even if more info can be brought together, then it still feels like it would be more appropriate as a paragraph in a game design article. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - I was wondering how to prove notability, and I am thinking that Wikipedia:Notability (memes) is the best category to use as a basis. There are thousands of website hits using this term - and most are related to game reviews, etc. The problem is, those are blocked at work. I know the term is used widely in video game reviews, but the article is poorly written, and does have OR in it. However, I strongly believe a new article could be written that is properly sourced - I am just unable to add those sources at this time. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a closer look would reveal some usable info, but I am weary that this would not be sufficient for anything past several sentences. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see this turning into an article with the sources available. I have seen tons of passing mentions and uses of the term, but not something that addresses the term itself. The pass-by mentions of the term would suffice for 2-3 sentences. This is not a stand-alone material topic. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, perfer merge if someone can find a home Sources seem weak, but the term is common enough that it is showing up in a current news search [26]. Is this a WP:DICDEF? Maybe so, but I think there is enough there for a short article though a merge to an appropriate article would be best unless someone can turn up some better sources. Hobit (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A newly invented Cryptographic Hash Function with no independent sources provided and none available that I could find - in particular, it has never been peer-reviewed or subjected to security analysis as far as I can tell. Most of the article is opaque source code. Cryptographic hashes are generally not notable unless they are in wide use, and this is not; based on what I have read of the hashing method it most likely never will be in wide use. As such, this is just promotional material. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Need it be pointed out that ~30KiB of this 34KiB article is GPL source code and that the GPL and the GFDL/CC-BY-SA are incompatible? Uncle G (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This hash function is unpublished and poorly designed. Finding collisions is easy The two strings "10608939The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" and "10308969The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" have both the following hash of length 32: "+!Yguf*aNV!P#Hiw*{*[#~*;1NfL+!%%" 85.1.57.131 (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow. Just amazed that someone would even consider source code a viable portion of an encyclopedia article. No third party sources indicating notability. OP is dead on. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete by Shirik Clear hoax. The sources were completely misrepresented. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NIGHT OF THE DAY OF THE DAWN OF THE SON OF THE BRIDE OF THE RETURN OF THE REVENGE OF THE TERROR OF THE ATTACK OF THE MUTANT, HELLBOUND, FLESH-EATING, CRAWLING, ALIEN, ZOMBIFIED, SUBHUMANOID LIVING DEAD – PART 5[edit]
NIGHT OF THE DAY OF THE DAWN OF THE SON OF THE BRIDE OF THE RETURN OF THE REVENGE OF THE TERROR OF THE ATTACK OF THE MUTANT, HELLBOUND, FLESH-EATING, CRAWLING, ALIEN, ZOMBIFIED, SUBHUMANOID LIVING DEAD – PART 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete. This film fails WP:V. Supplied references don't check out. An independent search for sources yields nothing. "Night of the Day... Part 3" exists, but Part 5 probably doesn't. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly joke title... but at least Part three is on IMDB.[27] At best, an article on Part 5 seems WP:TOOSOON. The fluffy article is apparently written as a promotion of a film-charity project involving the film, and offers only two sources... one a dead link to Daily Record[28] and the other a link to Philly Blurbs[29] which leads to an unrelated article about Charlie Sheen. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 01:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because 1. MQS says "delete" 2. the title is annoying the hell out of me 3. couldn't find significant coverage of this film in reliable sources. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No good or even passable sources. Sven ManguardWha? 02:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's why the dogs have been barking since twilight ... better lock the doors now. Delete per WP:V. Antandrus (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G3 because the article clearly misappropriates the two sources — one's a dead link and the other isn't what it says it is. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2011 (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 00:23, 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, Courcelles 00:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a legitimate 40-year-old magazine, with very significant GHits. Qworty (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Mission: Impossible guest stars (A–M)[edit]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely keep the A-M guest stars, but delete the N-Z stars as less notable; generally, on shows where guest stars are introduced in alphabetical order, they are mentioned far down the list... Mandsford 01:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait wha? You have to be being sarcastic here. Oh my... wow... lol well played. :D Sven ManguardWha? 06:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard television list that acts as a navigation device, there are no or few redlinks so qualifies under WP:List. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond a WP:VAGUEWAVE, I see no deletion rationale. I've actually never seen the show, but from what I understand of it, its format of a different mission every episode made the guest stars a rather integral part of the show. I'm also struck by the fact that there's not a single redlinked (or unlinked) name; every one of these guest stars merits their own article. So these are lists of notable actors who guest starred on a notable television show. Is there's a good reason as to why these lists aren't a relevant part of the encyclopedic coverage of this show? postdlf (talk) 14:56, 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, Courcelles 00:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This debate seems to have taken a strange course. The closest thing to a guideline for stand-alone lists seems to be: has the topic (in this case either Mission: Impossible guest stars or the list itself) been covered in reliable sources? If it does, the current article certainly doesn't show it. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mission: Impossible is the parent topic, which is notable. Each of the actors listed as a guest star is notable. The only remaining question is whether listing the guest stars provides relevant and useful information in furtherance of the parent topic. I can't find much to go on from online searches, given that the one (?) book wholly dedicated to the show is not searchable, but I think the significance of the guest stars is easily deducible from the format of the show and the fact that there are so many bluelink actors who guest starred. The repeated mentions of the guest stars in this amazon.com editorial review of a DVD set are also persuasive. I personally wouldn't require any special pleading, however, to justify a list of notable guest stars for any notable dramatic TV show. There's no reason it shouldn't be a standard part of coverage, like episode lists. So keep. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listcruft is an essay. None of its recommendations, other than the omnipresent (fundamental, but a no brainer) WP:N, are even to be found in the only WP rule AfD should be using: WP:DEL, specifically WP:DEL#REASON.
However, for the sake of argument, it does have some examples. "List of University of Chicago people and List of Oz books" are acceptable, "In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles—University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum, respectively—and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out." and "List of small-bust models and performers, List of songs that contain the laughter of children, and List of nasal singers should be considered highly questionable because there are no articles on those topics."
Ask yourself, does Mission Impossible have an article? I am taking bets at 20 to 1.
As for NOTADIR, "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic"
Can you shoot a scene without actors? Andy Warhol could, and would, but he's dead. I think we can all agree that the scenes are better for the inclusion of actors, even guest ones.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Fight Club and deleting history per consensus to delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no real notability shown for this band. award nominations are for a local award. battle of the bands win not a major contest. a play on rage is well short of rotation. releases not on important labels. compilation appearences are not notable. of the coverage provided there is none that are reliable and provide significant coverage. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:musicduffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 14 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 00:17, 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, Courcelles 00:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting content, but still doesn't meet the Music notability guideline. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Wickedjacob (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not if the television special exists, the only source is YouTube, and I can't find any references, and I assume that the television special may be hoax. JJ98 (Talk) 07:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The television special exists, but information on the wikipedia page is incorrect. The special aired in 1981 and more information can be found at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192008/. One of the few images of the Video cassette can be located here: http://www.amazon.com/Faeries-VHS-Hans-Conreid/dp/6300152936. I have watched this movie before, and the television special was not a hoax.Stalemayt1 (talk) 08:19, 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) 00:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faeries (1981 TV special) or something in the appropriate format. The title does not accurately reflect the information. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominated per WP:ORG. Local chapters of State or National organizations are not considered notable unless there are reliable secondary sources to show otherwise. This article is completely unsourced, and a look for reliable secondary sources comes up with nothing that is independent of the subject (there is a self-published history)... There is no indication of what makes this particular Chapter different from any other, so notability is not established. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete curious collection of disorganized factoids. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop. It is obviously not unsourced. It is based upon a record book described in the text, which would be a good/reliable source for some information in such an article. Is this the lodge that built, or one that used, the Masonic Temple (Richmond, Virginia), which was "the finest example of Richardsonian Romanesque style architecture in the state, and others have asserted that at its time of construction it was "one of the 'most magnificent examples of modern architecture in the South.'"[1]: 2
The NRHP nomination document lists additional sources in footnotes and bibliography which might be consulted. Do you have access / have you run lit. searches covering historical Virginia newspapers? --doncram (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram conflates topics... the building he points us to certainly sounds notable... but that does not mean the chapter (the subject of the article) is notable. Notability is not inherited. The notability of a building does not impart notability upon those that may (or may not) have met in the building (I say "may not" because at the moment we don't even have an indication that the chapter in question ever met in this building). Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not conflate anything! I pointed to a related article, which the AFD'd topic article should probably link to, if the Lodge met there. In many other state capital or other cities, multiple Masonic lodges have shared use of a big building like this one, so it's an educated guess (not yet confirmed) that this lodge met there. I pointed out it has sources which have not been consulted. I suggest now that the AFD nominator has not done research he coulda done. Better to tag the article about forming inline citations and to leave for development. --doncram (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source stating that the Richmond Royal Arch Chapter met on occasion at a different building, which i think is the Mason's Hall (Richmond, Virginia), also NRHP-listed. Its article has another NRHP nom with its own bibliography of additional sources that could include some relevant for this article (pls. note the online version of the NRHP nom for Mason's Hall is missing a page or two as what shows for bibliography section is an incomplete continuation page. A full copy can be obtained by request to National Register, at no charge). --doncram (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD nominator is Confused about what Conflation is, and Fails to Follow that the historic buildings articles and their sources should be Consulted First, before Considering any Historic topic to be Hopeless for wikipedia Coverage. :) Happy Christmas! --doncram (talk) 18:32, 24 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, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I really can't see how meeting in a range of historic buildings makes this chapter notable. When the history of an organisation and the history of a notable historic building are shared (e.g. a church and the church building that it worships in), it's appropriate to give a substantial amount of coverage to the organisation even if the building is the prime topic, but it's not really appropriate to devote separate articles to the two subjects. It's not in line with our notability standards to say that the existence of groups of sources that certainly cover specific buildings is sufficient for the notability of one of the organisations that uses that building. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about the sources that primarily regard the historic buildings. What about:
"A History of Richmond Royal Arch Chapter", by Snydor and Gearheardt, 1942, cited within Turnbull and Denslow, and
Other sources which u might find by further browsing in the Google results?
I don't care much for articles about chapters of organizations, but these seem to be reliable sources establishing the existence and some of the history of this organization. --Doncram (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. The sources Doncram is providing are, of course, not independent, as WP:RS requires; indeed, the Moore and Snydor cites are written by members of the chapter. Blueboar's use of the word "conflate" to describe Doncram's actions is not in the least degree confused - any sources or arguments based around the notability of the building in which an organization meets cannot, of course, pertain to the notability of the organization. That this chapter exists no one disputes; that it is notable is another matter. Ravenswing 15:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found to support the text.Fails WP:V. Conflict of interest additional concern as is tone. Plad2 (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article now has two references (which would be enough to replace the "unsourced" tag with "BLPsources"). Other concerns remain.--Plad2 (talk) 07:19, 17 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 00:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't seem to pick up what's odd - there's a few links which also establish notability. Mar4d (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references which have been added don't help much apart from establishing the fact that Saleem exists and is a musician. They don't establish his notability as per WP:MUSICBIO (which is one of the reasons why I didn't use them when I was first looking to source the article). There was a copyvio concern (notes on the article talk page) which was dealt with by reverting to an earlier text. We could stub the article even further and keep it (I've seen worse) but it still won't meet WP:MUSICBIO.--Plad2 (talk) 07:42, 28 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, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP which lacks coverage in independent reliable. The Dawn article is a start but not there yet (and it does verify the articles claim that that album was a hit). Apart from unsourced claim of numerous hits nothing else in the article would make him notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:09, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to United States elections, 2012. Consensus is that we should not have this article (yet). Those supporting the keep position do not really articulate a valid argument. Redirecting to United States elections, 2012 because it allows for the easy re-creation of the article when the time comes, and I highly doubt those who supported outright deletion would object to this approach. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROD-contested. Per WP:CRYSTAL. There is simply not enough information on a state congressional race yet to provide any useful information. Right now, this article would be nothing but conjecture. elektrikSHOOS 02:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My reasons for objecting to the PROD are the same as voting keep in the AfD. While throwing out names of potential candidates can be WP:CRYSTAL, it is not a violation to say that these elections will be held on that first Tuesday in 2012. Information about candidates will be added as it comes, and candidates will be declaring their intentions soon enough. Even if this article is deleted, it will have to be recreated eventually. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could, but then we'd have to undo the redirect soon enough anyway, and restore all the current content with additional content. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this "we'll just have to make it again later" argument. See WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Just because it may fit inclusion requirements in the future doesn't mean it fits them now. And certainly, recreating an article on Wikipedia is no trouble whatsoever. elektrikSHOOS 19:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the event is certain to occur; but can anything verifiable and not original research be said about the event? especially isolated to the washington event?. Id lean towards deletion on this but certaintly wouldnt oppose a re-direct Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't speculated to meet future notability criteria; it meets it now. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States elections, 2012. There are no verifiable facts to report on this subject. We know it'll happen, and we know that certain seats will be up for election. But anything else is just conjecture at this early stage. I can see an argument for an earlier article if there is drama surrounding reapportionment, but even then that'll be relegated to the reapportionment article for Washington (if any), or to the US Elections page. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 21:11, 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) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom until we reach 2011 or 2012 at the earliest. みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 07:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Minna Sora. Untill we get about 5 candidates announcing their runs I think this page is simply too early. Plus with the US House, each seat is up for grabs each election. Hasteur (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the sort of article which candidate bios are always being merged to. Like it or not, the election cycle never stops and the 2012 campaign is underway. This is a nice framework for additional information, which will no doubt be forthcoming shortly. Inclusion-worthy topic, content already showing is accurate. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to the main elections article until there is any verifiable content about candidates. Until then, the article only attracts useless speculation (a current gem: "Rumor says that Inslee might run for governor, which would make this a race to watch"). Sandstein 10:38, 6 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 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.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a jargon guide. The only content in this article is quoted directly from sources. Lacks evidence of notability. Pnm (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a dictionary definition. I fail to see how this dictionary definition, that is formatted as a dictionary definition, has a scope for significant expansion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 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) 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is only an instance of normal use of the word "impact." No special insiderness in the IT world is needed to understand the meaning. You might as well as have an article on "Incident (security)". Jaque Hammer (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with Jaque Hammer. This is not a specialized use of the word impact. I wouldn't even say it was "jargon" as the OP stated. It is an example of the word being used in a sentence within an IT environment. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)--Takamaxa (Talk) 02:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Impact (security) with Information security. It is still a useful term to know but maybe not enough content to justify having its own page on the topic. I would rather keep the information and sources in Information security rather than delete.
Delete as copyvio of the cited source. This use of copyrighted text to constitute essentially the whole of an article goes beyond a permitted brief quotation. In addition, the page fails WP:DICDEF. Sandstein 10:14, 6 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to some other article. The merge target is not yet clear and should be determined by further discussion. Sandstein 10:26, 6 January 2011 (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, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a piece of jargon used by US government's Committee on National Security Systemsin to refer to the capabilities of its Intelligence Community System for
Information Sharing. Aside from DHS usage, I can't find any coherent definition of just that term. In general usage this phrase usually appears to refer to a specific method of control, e.g. "brain controlled interface". An article only on this one exceptional use only serves to confuse.merge, deferring to the experts ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect (assuming anything can be sourced) to Unidirectional network. This appears to be the most appropriate subject for it to be covered in. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep this stub, which does have possibilities, or Merge to Multilevel security. Data diodes can only do the job in the simplest of cases, and the security domains involved may reside on a single computer without any involvement of networks. --Lambiam 23:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you would track down some references for the content you added? I'd like evidence it meets WP:GNG. --Pnm (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a general reference for the whole article this (rather old) Network Security Reference Guide could be used, produced by the Defense Security Service. Beyond that, I'm afraid I can't be of help there; some entries coughed up by Google scholar search look promising but lead to journals I have no free access to; what I could find and access generally reads like product blurbs and is useless here. The MLS research agenda is set entirely by the U.S. military, and results obtained are not of intrinsic academic (and even less of general public) interest. The best hope may be some kind of tutorial, but I couldn't find any. --Lambiam 21:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. The article has been wholly rewritten after 28 December 2010 and is no longer a poorly written essay, so most of the discussion no longer applies to it. If there are still reasons for its deletion, a new AfD discussion would need to be started. Sandstein 10:07, 6 January 2011 (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, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, personal essay. It's even written in the first person. JIP | Talk 06:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too far gone to be saved. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and poorly written research essay. Not opposed to incubating/userfying this to improve it, but falls significantly short of the Article bar. Hasteur (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The NAFPS Forum seems to suggest that the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky are not a Federally recognised group, and that they were only a splinter group back in the 1860s. I have added some refs for anyone curious about the group itself. The article as it exists is not representative, much less rewriteable. I would say the group, as a subgroup, are noteworthy though, and will undertake a total rewrite if it is kept. MarkDask 01:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After further research, there are an immense number of sources to demonstrate the historical significance of the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky. This article deserves to be treated as a Biography of Living People. I will rewrite it in the next few days. MarkDask 04:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy: I agree that this fails WP:ESSAY, but have no objection to Markdask userfying it and seeing if something can be made of it. Ravenswing 14:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Traynor - your condescension is appreciated. The importance of this article can be seen in new world encyclopedia.org where the subject is comprehensively addressed. MarkDask 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've bitten off more than I can chew. Given there are several Court Cases pending between the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the US Federal Government, regarding the issue of Cherokee citizenship, where the very existance of the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is questioned as a tribe, even described as fraudulent by the official Cherokee Nation, I think the subject is too fluid as to be encyclopedic. The original article, created by no less than Principal Chief Michael "Manfox" Buley himself - is too subjective to be encyclopedic in any case. Although I still believe the subject is historically significant, the status of the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is beyond my capability as an editor. If the deletion tag is removed, however, I will consider it a vote of confidence on what I have already done and make it a pet project.MarkDask 17:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY as several good sources have been added. Copyediting is not a reason for deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 5 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.
Confirmed as being the same editor;
