< 4 December	6 December >

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ferns[edit]

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

The article is a BLP (and, perhaps, a vanity piece) on a student filmmaker. It is lacking in reliable sources, and I am not finding anything on Google to help it meet notability requirements as per WP:BIO. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google may not bring reliable sources yet the artical its self features reliable links and I shall edit it to contain a newspaper clipping on the subject of michale and his films --Whenigrowup999 (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added Newspaper clipping and BAFTA websites award winners list and aceptance speach video , all for notibilty . --Whenigrowup999 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a BAFTA Award winner meets WP:ANYBIO.[1] However, the very new article sent to AFD only 4 minutes after its creation[2] will need further sourcing and cleanup for style... but such would seem do-able through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'm quite interested in hearing what was the bloody rush to nominate this article for deletion? BAFTA awards are highly notable, and the mere assertion of one should have been enough to provoke some research. With an article nominated moments after creation, it doesn't seem as if such research was attempted. Meanwhile, the creator kept on improving the article, and I can only hope his reception as a newcomer to Wikipedia didn't turn him off. Ravenswing 17:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a special point to give him the "Welcome message" that no one else had.[3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I saw that, good on you. Ravenswing 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per RGT.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RGT. Hopefully this rush to nominate didn't scare away a new editor. Probably one of my biggest pet peeves is when people rush to delete an article that could easily be notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you read his biography carefully, he is not a BAFTA Award winner -- he is the winner of the BAFTA Scotland New Talent Award, which I assume is the Scottish equivalent of the Student Academy Award. I am unaware that Wikipedia is extending notability to student filmmakers, especially those that appear to be writing vanity articles. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Something of a "When did you stop beating your wife?" statement, isn't it? We are, in point of fact, choosing to believe someone honored by BAFTA to be notable. That the subject is young, or that you speculate that he is the creator of the article, isn't particularly relevant to WP:ENTERTAINER or the GNG. Ravenswing 04:54, 9 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 (A7) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth McCarthy[edit]

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

Biography of an actress whose listed roles appear to have been non-notable (generally un-named, uncredited and/or in a non-notable production). No significant coverage in reliable sources found, as required for a biography of a living person. I42 (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The actress has had only minor roles and lacks coverage. WP:TOOSOON. BUT if article author, new User:Lizflicks is not a single purpose account and not Elizabeth McCarthy, I might suggest he/she request userfication for work out of mainspace while he/she goes through the 500+ misc g-hits to find if any of them might act as sources to meet WP:GNG. The common-ness of the name will not make the work easy, but could be good practice for a newcomer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete; A7 or G11, as this seems to be both non notable and an autobiography. WuhWuzDat 04:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Maybe salt.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:33, 6 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 (G5), article created by a banned user in violation of ban. –MuZemike 04:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apple hat[edit]

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

I could not find significant coverage for this type of pastry. A few recipes or mentions, but very little overall. /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything for an encyclopaedia article, either. I found Deacon Porter's Hat (which is best treated as a subtopic of Mount Holyoke College#Traditions I suspect), but nothing on this. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N as it lacks 3rd-party, verifiable sources other than a few cookbooks. No news articles or significant book mentions could be found (except for the cookbooks). Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:14, 6 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. Tone 15:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC) The inappropriate comment of "The Bushranger" is insulting 60 internationally highly respected scientists! The article was never meant to describe an accomplished fact of science but the discussion process towards a model that in fact combines unambiguously quantum physics with the theory of relativity. This discussion process will be never finished, as humans will never understand the reason why anything exists at all. However, the discussion has now reached a point that it is worth to share the current results in public. To explain to me that Wikipedia may be only the right place to integrate these scientific findings after they have been spread across all other media on a global scale could have been said in a polite way, without calling the recognized competence of all listed renowned scientist that are in fact all involved in the ongoing discussion into question. Many thanks to all other valuable comments to help us to decide about the right moment to publish in Wikipedia. Until this moment please pay in Wikipedia attention to the fact that "Rotational symmetry of quantized space-time" and "Escape of time" is protected by copyright. Thanks again, Henryk --Frystacki (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rotational symmetry of quantized space-time[edit]

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

Gibberish essay.TimothyRias (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR and WP:SYN None of the sources deal with the subject in any sense. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO of [4]. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY - and probably fails WP:CSD criteion G3. If there was a theory that"unifies quantum physics and the special theory of relativity and general theory of relativity," this would be the lead article in every science journal, and possibly even HUGE TYPE on the front of the New York Times as the greatest scientific achievement of the millenia (or perhaps ever). Presenting this theory here as an accomplished fact of science is a blatant hoax. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of verifiability at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, original research. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research filled with wild speculation. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On second glance of the article and the source from which it is cribbed, this is complete nonsense to me. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable secondary sources on the discussed subject itself, as needed for such a subject (WP:PSTS). -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that this article contained a list of many eminent physicists under the heading "group of involved experts", so I await with interest a reply to this email that I just sent to the originator of this theory/hypothesis/conjecture/model/whatever:

Dr Frystacki, I note that clicking on "Participants" on your web site brings up a list of eminent scientists under the heading "Invitation / Participation in scientific discussions". Have any of these have actually accepted an invitation to participate in discussion of your hypotheses?

Phil Bridger (talk) 01:10, 8 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 redirect to World War III in popular culture. Redirect created, all the content is still available for a merge. Tone 15:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World War III (science fiction)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/World War III (science fiction)

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

This article has a number of arguably irresolvable problems: 1. It reads like a personal essay, with little or no objective content, and heavy reliance on primary sources. 2. It is highly partial in its coverage, and only has a vague grasp of its subject matter. For instance, it seems to equate a "World War" with a "War of the Worlds", which is not the same. 3. Any valid information this article contains would be better placed in World War III in popular culture. Serendi ^pod ous 16:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to World War III in popular culture per nomSadads (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. As it stands, it does seem much more like an essay than an encyclopedic article, and suffers from OR, NPOV, and selection bias. bahamut0013^words _deeds 00:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect any valid, referenced info.ArchieOof (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as indiscriminate and lacking third-party sources to verify notability. Unresolvable amounts of WP:OR as people try to argue about what fictional wars qualify as a third one, and which do not... with no third-party sources in existence to back either point of view. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with World War III in popular culture where content is appropriate and reliably sourced. It reads to me like the creating editor simply needs a little guidance on the encyclopaedic purpose of Wikipaedia. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 10:03, 12 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. Tone 15:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackfoot[edit]

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

This is an original research essay about a self-invented term for an unrecognized and unattested musical "genre" (which retroactively reclaims decades-old songs from other genres as being part of it), not a real encyclopedia article about a real musical genre that's actually recognized as such by real sources. I would simply delete it as a hoax, but there's already been a prod attempt which the creator (whose username is User:Jackfoot, raising the possibility of WP:COI here, too) circumvented by way of WP:OTRS instead of through normal prod procedures. It's still a pretty clear and unequivocal delete, however. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable, secondary sources at all that I can find. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: given the COI and other shenanigans. I'm certainly happy to cite it as failing WP:HOAX as well as WP:NOR and WP:BULLSHIT. It's bad enough that every wannabe music blogger and garage band is claiming to have invented A New Musical Genre Which Captures Their Unique Sound. Ravenswing 17:59, 6 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. Tone 15:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Kavadas[edit]

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

Delete. Subject is not basically notable. A priest. Not a bishop or anything. Not a theologian nor scholar. An honorable person with lots of religious service, just not notable. Student7 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DoNotDelete Subjct is indeed Notable, was above a Priest. Was a Protopresbyter and he was a scholar also.Sublect was March of DIMES MAN OF THE YEAR, AND HONORED BY THE U.S. CONGRESS,IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanariote (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC) — Phanariote (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
http://www.orthodoxnews.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=usnews.one&content_id=15869&CFID=72092943&CFTOKEN=53644936&tp_preview=true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanariote (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.chiosbroadwireless.gr/dromoi.asp?letter=%CA In Greek road names with Stefanos Kavadas road —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanariote (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxNews/message/1469'(Phanariote (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
'http://www.marchofdimes.com/michigan/5237_16527.asp'(Phanariote (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
'http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?r108:@BAND(@OD3+(Mr+Levin)+@OR(@FIELD(FLD003+h)+@FIELD(FLD003+e)))'(Phanariote (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
'http://www.theologic.com/oflweb/inchurch/attend1.htm'(Phanariote (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
'http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2003-09-23/pdf/CREC-2003-09-23-extensions.pdf'(Phanariote (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm unpersuaded by Phanariote's links, three of which are broken, one of which is in Greek, one which is a rather bland obituary posted to a website, one which is a forum post. The particular Congressional Record page cited in the remaining link also honors the Royal Oak Lions Club, the Switalski Family, the chancellor of a local community college, "Hoot" MacInerney and the Central Macomb County Chamber of Commerce, among other no-doubt-sterling citizens and institutions that fail of notability per WP:ORG or WP:BIO. A glance at the remarks concerning the subject reveal that the "Alexander Macomb Citizens of the Year" award is in fact the man-of-the-year award that the local Detroit March of Dimes chapter gives out. Ravenswing 18:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although the awards and recognition indicate he was a fine person, they do not represent the level that would be needed to establish notability without additional significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 7 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. WP:SNOW. This is not a wikipedia article and it's unlikely that it could be turned into one. It's possible that an NPOV article could be written on the subject but that would be an entirely different article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gender stereotypes in Television Commercials[edit]

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

This is an essay structured and written to present an argument, not a WP:NPOV encyclopedia article. Previously prodded, but creator removed the prod notice without providing a rationale or improving the article to any significant degree. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essay gets 2/10. An article may be possible with this title and scope but this ain't it. Delete. pablo 23:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very poorly written, but it can be improved to match wikipedia standards, although it would still remain irrelevant. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC) - User was just blocked for being a sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious violation of WP:NOTESSAY. There needs to be a "A11 - Blatantly an essay" WP:CSD criterion. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I put the prod 2 on it, and haven't changed my mind. "The purpose of this work is to study gender stereotypes in advertising" says ESSAY in capitals. If it were an overview of other researches into the subject (all referenced neatly), there might be a case. This appears to be a direct study of a limited range of confectionery. (I was puzzled at first by the inclusion of Alpen Gold, as in the UK Alpen is a Weetabix muesli type cereal product. Alpen Gold is a Kraft chocolate product and a high seller in Russia, whence it would seem this article originates.) Peridon (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly written essay page. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give it a B+ as an essay, and then delete it. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, OR/essay. Roscelese (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the best-written and researched pieces I have read on the internets. My only concern is that this article appears to be a word-for-word duplicate of an article I read last month in "Foreign Affairs," or was it the "Atlantic Monthly"? Tonyeason (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)This user is a sockpuppet of User:Wiki brah[reply]

The above user has only edited one other article and that one is rather unexpected for a new account. Peridon (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Essay. Not well-written. Tonyeason needs more variety in their reading habits if they think this is good. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do we have a WP:SNOWBALL yet? WuhWuzDat 18:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, slam-dunk unencyclopedic essay. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 11 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. Tone 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Crosland[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:CREATIVE. I made some search and could find a few local exhibitions [5] or [6], but no press coverage nor any evidence of the artist being represented in museums. Anneyh (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: His general notability, both as an artist and former musician, is very doubtful. Actually, the same seems to apply to his band, Le Neon. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam with no real notability shown. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 7 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. Tone 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King Par[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has lacked any references since 2007, and has received less than 25 edits in its entire history to date. A first AFD in 2009 was closed as no consensus, with one editor claiming there were sources but failing to add them. Steven Walling 19:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Coverage is limited to press releases, adverts and incidental coverage. There seems to be none in which the store is the subject of the coverage, as required by GNG, and there is no reason to suspect that any exists. _wjemather ^bigissue 22:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Reading over that previous AfD disappointed me. Of the three Keep proponents, one based his opposition on what apparently was a string of attacks on the nom's AfDs, one opined that sources existed without proffering any, while the third blatantly admitted that the sources he found were not about the subject, but about people affiliated with the subject. What I want to see are - as the GNG requires - multiple, reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail." It is explicitly, per deletion policy, not the duty of Delete proponents to prove that such sources do not exist, but the duty of Keep proponents to prove that they do. Not surmise, not speculate, not extrapolate: prove. Ravenswing 18:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "sources" provided in the first AFD do not establish that the subject actually passes WP:GNG. I grew up near this store and it was generally known by local golfers but by no means a major landmark and the subject fails WP:CORP as well. -Drdisque (talk) 05:53, 11 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. Tone 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basset by MYC[edit]

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

Not notable due to insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Evil saltine (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly have some sort of redirect to National Theatre Connections#2011. Wikipedia is not a blog for work-in-progress productions, be it youth theatre of large-scale professional productions. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:45, 8 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. Tone 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Parade[edit]

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

They may make it one day, but as of yet they do not come close to matching the requirements at WP:BAND Nuttah (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added several references that prove coverage in reliable, independent sources. They have also been played on national radio stations, including being on the playlist on XFM. - mspete93 20:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They may 'make it one day'? They've already made it. RADIO ONE COVERAGE!30,000 hits on Youtube! About to start a headline tour! Played at several major festivals last summer!
Morning Parade have been together for two years now. They have many popular songs including Marble Attic and A&E which have received lots of praise from sites such as Gigwise. They have also released their debut single 'Under the Stars' which has got air time of major British radio stations, including BBC Radio 1. This clearly shows that they have indeed 'made it'. Their eagerly awaited album is due to be released shortly.
Furthermore, they have played at many major festivals, including Latitude, Newquay and Underage. The Maccabees have also played at these festivals. Would you propose the deletion of The Maccabees page?
Finally the sources provided by mspete are very reliable and clearly show that Morning Parade are a notable band.Fryertuk (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC) — Fryertuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Coverage is easily enough for notability.--Michig (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Firstly, as other people have already said, there is sufficient evidence here to show that they are notable. Secondly, Wikipedia is supposed to be a free source of information that anyone can add to and share on in order to learn new things. Seeing as Morning Parade are a real and now reasonably established band, doesn't it contradict the point of Wikipedia to delete their page? Hujfuj (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC) — Hujfuj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep- The idea that this page should be deleted is laughable. I turned on Absolute Radio and guess who should be playing- the very band in question!They were played by Geoff Lloyd who even said that they ahd been played on the station many times before. Clearly a significant band. Oppqu (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC) — Oppqu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Currently the only in depth coverage in a reliable source is the MTV interview, other than that it is gig listings and blogs (or the BBC reference that does not mention the band). I'm still not seeing the coverage WP:GNG or WP:BAND expects. Nuttah (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep- I believe that this article on Morning Parade should not be deleted. Firstly Wikipedia isn't just about producing pages for the well known acts/people that everyone has heard of, its about letting everyone know and learn about new acts, such as Morning parade. This page deserves to stay on the internet for all to see. They have been praised for their achievements on the likes of the BBC/MTV, and have played at many well known British festivals. If Morning Parade shouldn't be allowed to have an article about them, then who can?

I understand that this page is simple and not yet finished, but soon it will have more references and be written in more depth. Morning Parade is a popular band by many and deserve to stay on Wikipedia. I see no reason why it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppqu (talk • contribs) 19:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage reflects notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:55, 10 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. Tone 15:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

António Roseiro[edit]

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

Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places, but I can't find reliable sources to verify this unreferenced biography. I'd expect someone with this number of awards and academic positions to leave some kind of web trace, so I'm surprised I'm drawing a blank. If anyone can do better than I did, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Fences&Windows 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This same person have been deleted in native language. No reliable sources also in Portuguese and no notability references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.10.10 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After a bit of googlesearching, I also could not verify any of the info in the article and could not find any other sources that would indicate notability. I don't know if this is a hoax, but in any event fails WP:V, not to mention WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found some interesting reading in an attempt to track down exactly who is behind the supposed University Pro-Deo that gave him a supposed honorary doctorate. The University of Coimbra, certainly, is a respected and legitimate institution, but granting him a doctorate in dentistry (if it can be documented that they did) is not exactly a signifier of notability. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 6 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. Tone 15:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arrow Post[edit]

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

Delete A paper written by school students. Very probably a commendable enterprise and probably deserving every success, but unfortunately there is no reason to think that it is notable enough to warrant an article in an encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Elementary school newspaper, has no implicit notability, and no sources to attest to any specific notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable...the school doesn't even have a page. CTJF83 chat 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with above. If this one is allowed than why not the thousands of other non-notable school newsletters? --BurtAlert (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this school newspaper isn't very notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines required for inclusion as a standalone article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:13, 9 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. Tone 15:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2013 MLS SuperDraft[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL Not notable yet JDDJS (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystal CTJF83 chat 18:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, as there is just not enough information for the article available yet. Consider recreation when at least half a dozen of trades and/or the location of the draft are known. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the meantime, why not collect any trades which are not listed in any articles yet within one's userspace? In order to save time, the respective references for the trades should also be stored. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the world's meant to end in 2012, so there probably won't be a 21013 MLS! But seriously, violates WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 14:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. This event is too far into the future to merit an article yet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:56, 6 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 deleted by User:HJ Mitchell. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Smith (footballer born 1983)[edit]

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

Article's subject is a footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league, thus failing WP:NSPORT#Association football, and not enough media coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Prod removed without explanation. Struway2 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:19, 5 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 22:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Anier[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No reason given for contesting. Concern was "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some - Pedõk was called up to Estonia national team. Hansen and Kütt are members of Saaremaa national/official football team. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedõk was called up to the team, but did not play which is the requirement for notability. Appearances Saaremaa, as a non-FIFA team, do not confer notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably they are deleted anyway, it doesn't matter what I say. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry, but the burden of proof is on your side and I would like to see some actual evidence that Virsliga was not a fully-pro league in 2009. BanRay 23:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a necessary criteria for inclusion, which means it must be established for an article to be created, or kept, not disproven to be deleted. That being said, I'm going to assume you mean the Meistriliiga, since none of these players have played in the Virsliga. Meistriliiga is clearly listed with a source as a top league that is not fully professional at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant exactly what I said, so please take another look. Mind you, this is not the first time you are nomminating an article without making any prior research. I don't want to come across as being rude, but if someone took time to create this content, then sure we could expect you to do some research before nominating it for deletion, especially if you happen to go beyond your area of expertise, as it clearly happened in this case. BanRay 10:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, which of these players have played in the Virsliga? As far as I can tell, the only other league that any of these players have been part of is the A Lyga, which is also considered non-notable. From what I can see the nominator hasn't done anything wrong, but I'd be happy for you to prove otherwise. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@BanRay: I fail to see how any of what you said is of any relevance to this AfD. As stated before, none of these players played in the Virsliga, making its professionality status completely irrelevant. As for the research that goes into the creation of articles, there are plenty of people who create articles in good faith, but are simply unaware of the notability criteria. I did that myself, when I first started editing. With all due respect, none of what you have said justifies a keep vote. If you can provide clear sources that indicate that any or all of these players are notable I'm more than willing to withdraw the appropriate nominations. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad, I was obviously thinking about A Lyga, nonetheless, my point stands. Even more so, A Lyga was a pro league until 2008, at least, as far as I know. I'm not sure about 2009 and 2010 though. It should have never been included in WP:FPL in the first place. The current source only says that the league regulations allow registration of semi-pro footballers and says nothing about the current status of the league. But then this brings us right back to the beginning. Which criteria does the league need to fulfill, in order to be deemed fully professional? Many leagues do not allow registering semi pro players. The link that currently justifies the inclusion of League 2 as a fully professional league, actually suggests that it also allows registering semi professional players, moreover, it even proves that the league had at least one semi professional player in 2008. Should this mean that League 2 and, possibly, League 1 are not fully professional (at elast according to WP:FOOTY? I'd appreciate some feedback. Thanks. BanRay 19:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you take this up at WT:FOOTY. Since most of this has little direct impact on this AfD, this isn't entirely the right forum for discussing it. As for the professionality status of A Lyga, do you have a source to support your claim? As you said it is listed on FPL, but the source for it is a dead link. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I you are not sure, then there should be no question. Keep the article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the point that notability is necessary. Unless you, or someone else, can demonstrate using reliable sources that these players do meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE, we must assume that they don't. This is called verifiability and is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sputnik, but you are the one missing the point here. WP:V says nothing about notability. The player's playing record is perfectly verifiable. The only question here is whether this record justifies player's inclusion or not. As long as there is no reliable source that would clarify the professional status of A Lyga, there is no way this article can be deleted under the rationale you provided. So far you have done very little to support your claim. BanRay 20:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me make it explicitly clear that this entire discussion is relevant only to Nikolai Mašitšev, since he is the only one these players to have played in the A Lyga. You (BanRay) probably know that, but it didn't seem sufficiently clear to the outside reader for my liking. Second, WP:V may not say anything about notability, but WP:N does mention verifiability. It says "Notability requires verifiable evidence". I cannot verify that Nikolai Mašitšev meets WP:ATHLETE, because I cannot verify that the A Lyga is fully-pro. Since notability requires verifiable evidence and there is none, or at least none yet, he is non-notable. As for the rest of them, they have only played in Estonia. The semi-pro status of the the Meistriiliga has been verified per sources at WP:FPL, meaning they all fail WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Flora is apparently in the UEFA Chapions League Second Qualifying Round for 11–12. Would this be enough to make them notable then? Now? - Wmcduff (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The qualifying rounds of the early qualifying rounds of UEFA club compettions generally don't confer notability precisely because of the presence of teams from semi-pro leagues. Besides this is a future competition and speculation is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete All: Flora and Levadia are 8 and 7 time champions respectively of and 18 year old league which is the top Estonian one, and while neither have made the Group Stages of the Europa League or Champions League, both have been in qualifying multiple times. They may not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, but if not, they're getting awfully close, I think. However, this is a can of worms to open up at WP:NFOOTY's talk page, not here. - Wmcduff (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the articles show they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 9 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. Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 19:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Jackson[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, declined speedy, I believe the subject is non-notable as a politician, having served two terms as mayor in a small town in florida. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has been a politician for 32 years, to me that meets GNG....a WP:BLPPROD would be good though. CTJF83 chat 18:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, article is not suitable for BLPPROD since it was written prior to march of 2010. Length of service does not appear to be a criterion at WP:POLITICIAN or GNG. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meets significant coverage CTJF83 chat 18:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus I think it meets number 2 on WP:POLITICIAN CTJF83 chat 18:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, fair enough. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:57, 5 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. Tone 15:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Abdel Haye Kira[edit]

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

A search for references found no published (gBooks) references for this subject, fails WP:N and WP:V. Prod removed with comment "rm prod. i suspect sources can be found with alternative spellings, so afd might be more useful". Article is about one of the most wanted underground fighters during the British occupation of Egypt Jeepday (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also unable to find any sources, odd for such a notorious fellow.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - given that no reliable sources can be found to verify the content in the article. Anotherclown (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it lacks reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as set out in the WP:GNG. Happy to change my opinion if appropriate sources can be found. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per AR: just no evidence of notability (yet). bahamut0013^words _deeds 00:24, 8 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. Tone 15:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (books), article has not established notability - only 1 primary source. Pervious delete debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith had no consensus. Since then, no significant changes to article, no reliable secondary sources added. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 14:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Basileias (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources; wikipedia is being used here as a promotional tool for the book.ArchieOof (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks promotional. Looks to be a self-published book (listed at our old friend lulu dot com). No attempt to show notability - which is harder to do with self-publication anyway. His books are listed at Rob Bell - probably that's all that's needed for them. Peridon (talk) 22:01, 9 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. The consensus is to keep, especially as the nominator withdrew their nomination -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hertford Cricket Club[edit]

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

Amateur cricket club which appears to fail Wikipedia:CRIN#CRIN. Note this is apparently not the same club as Hertfordshire County Cricket Club -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no notability asserted; will be blocking author for username violation. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should meet Wikipedia:CRIN#CRIN as they are in one of the ECB Premier Leagues (the Home Counties Premier Cricket League) having been promoted there at the end of last season and should therefore now be listed on List of English cricket clubs.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amateur club with no particular notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's what has happened so far. A person has come to Wikipedia to create an article on a topic close to their heart. The article is not terribly spammy, is definitely not a CSD candidate and is at least sourced, even if the source is not ideal. Our response to this as a project is to immediately nominate the article for deletion and as a double whammy, block the creator on a technical (and esoteric to the newbie editor) breach of the username policy - preventing him/her from contributing to the AfD or fixing the article! The editor proposes a new name and even though it meets WP:UNAME, we decline to accept it in good faith and so allow the editor to contribute to discussion here. What a welcome to the project for a new editor! The subject may indeed be non-notable (If it does play in the Home Counties Premier Cricket League however, it would meet WP:CRIN) but does anyone actually think what has happened here is a good outcome? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I disagree with the way the user's block has been handled, I don't think it can be regarded as inappropriate for someone unfamiliar with cricket to have started this AfD. The article was unsourced when nominated and technically does not meet WP:CRIN as Hertford has not been added to List of English cricket clubs yet as the ECB have not updated their website with the league entrants for next season. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify, I don't think anyone has acted in bad faith. Everyone has acted in accordance with policy. It is just unfortunate that no one seemed to give any consideration to how this all looks from the new editor's point of view. My criticism is more of the process than the editors here. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I may well have misread this - but it did look to me as if a purely recreational club was creating an article about itself. I do regret the way circumstances have come together to result in an overall response that does appear a bit bitey. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hertford Cricket Club meets WP:CRIN criteria as it is an ECB Premier League club. This therefore makes it a notable recreational club within the remit of WP:CRIC. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I completely agree with Mattinbgn on the conduct in which this AfD has been carried out. I would say it is not in good faith and certainly the opposite of WP:DONTBITE. To block a newbie editor on a technicality for which it is obvious they would not be aware really doesn't show this project in good faith. The whole conduct in which this has been carried out seems in bad faith: nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Associate Affiliate. The assertion by the nominator here is clearly false as, the club does meet WP:CRIN by playing in one of the ECB Premier Leagues in this case the Home Counties Premier Cricket League. It appears that good faith has not really been shown here, over what, in reality, amounts to a very inconsequential article in the grands scheme of things.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find this club mentioned on the Home Counties League website although my unfamiliarity with the structure of English cricket means I may be looking in the wrong spot. That is why I haven't given my opinion as "keep" just yet. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they have been promoted to compete in the 2011 season. The League site hasn't been updated yet.—User:MDCollins (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I nominated the article (and I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed to be accused of bad faith, especially after the 27,000+ contributions I've made to this project), I could not find evidence to support notability under WP:CRIN - and the article itself provided none at the time. As a source has now been added, I shall change my position to "Keep/Withdraw". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment Whilst I largely agree with the 'keep' comments so far, I haven't thrown my hat into the ring yet as I haven't been able to find significant coverage in any sources. Does anyone have further sources to add? Meeting WP:CRIN in the absence of any significant coverage in secondary sources might not be sufficient. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aaroncrick ^TALK 09:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Withdraw, now that a source has been added to attest to notability (Only a self-published source exists so far - I can still see no third party confirmation - but I think it's probably reliable enough to keep the article). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Boing! said Zebedee, I think the issue here is more of the treatment of the newbie, who has been blocked for a technicality they would not be aware of, when they provided an alternative name this was ignored and ban upheld. I CSD and AfD things, which is to be expected of the project in regards to notability, that is not the issue. The manner in which the newbie appears to have been bashed is. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, and I think declining the unblock was a mistake (and I do feel quite bad about having started the whole thing). But I honestly think it's a combination of misjudgments (including mine) rather than bad faith on anyone's part. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 7 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 22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Sattar (Taliban commander)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It is unclear that the two sources of the article talk about the same person and one source with little information on the individual is based on unreliable classified intelligence. IQinn (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP violations including scuttlebut, rumor, gossip, hearsay, and allegations. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 6 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. Tone 15:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Charlton[edit]

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

One of those articles that you hate finding/love nominating for AFD. Tagged since April 2010 as spam and orphan, it has so few Ghits on the term "(David Charlton) hairdresser" (554) the result is that the wikipedia article is the main "claim to notability." Resultantly fails WP:BIO and WP:CORP. Would have gone speedy, but its been there for far too long Trident13 (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN person/salon...and clearly written by someone who works there "Although we are in the process of turning David’s Salon’s Inc. into a holding company", "Although each of the managers is ready and able to help out in any salon as needed", "Our accounting department", etc, etc. CTJF83 chat 18:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CT. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 12 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 to keep the article. I was impressed with the amount of work put into this article in a short time and closed as promised. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. M. M. Naoshad[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP. Was PRODed, and quoted for unsourced BLP, and one source was added that does not answer WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. A check myself did not reveal any more sources. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry but being a comfirmed Member of a national parliament instantly passes both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. They contribute to governing countries so are clearly notable. But you are correct in that they need multiple sources. For some reason though google is not finding much at all on this chap, maybe somebody could find his name in the native Sinhala language?. I am certain he had a government profile like Parliament profile this when he represented parliament in Sri Lanka for the 13th term but as it is now the 14th I suspect this is the reason why that link is now dead on my PC, that its no longer accessible, unless sombody else can access it. It seems that Naoshad is an incorrect spelling, Naushad I think is correct. But for some reason its not picking up many hits I need to expand this.. I have managed to scrap together some info. I strongly suggest you now withdraw this nomination as in all honesty the chances of it being deleted is zilch...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously meets WP:POLITICIAN. Kudos to Dr. Blofeld on finding sources. Location (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with the major expansion and improvement in sourcing since this AfD was started, I don't think there is any further doubt the article meets our requirements. I know AfD is not supposed to be for "cleanup", but in this case it has resulted in a much better article than we had before. Full disclosure: I took a look at this at the request of Wolfstorm000. LadyofShalott 20:43, 5 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. Tone 15:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's Doncaster Butterscotch Company[edit]

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

Mostly a copyvio of www.doncasterbutterscotch.com/. Advertisement-like. No secondary sources, especially for the possibly controversial claim of the first use of certain word (butterscotch). Very few non-bot edits in three years. hydrox (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —hydrox (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The original Parkinson's company would be worth an article, but this is not the original company, just a small 7yr old outfit using its name and its notability. Most of the article could be deleted anyway, as off-topic. (Incidentally, I think the claim about "butterscotch" first being used in Doncaster is correct, but can't supply a reference.) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete without necessary prejudice to re-creation. Much of the text on the page is identical in substance to the text at http://www.doncasterbutterscotch.com/ and as such should be deleted as copyright violation. The remainder is unverified claims. I found nothing with news or books searches. If the 19th century firm is notable, and I'm open to being convinced that it is, it needs a different article than this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:46, 6 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. The consensus is to keep; I note that the article has been moved to the correct title with a capital "O" for Oregon -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heart in oregon[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found articles in The Oregonian and The Portland Upside that discuss this campaign in a fair amount of detail. It would be good to have some input from those familiar with Oregon newspapers as to whether the second is a reliable source. This is not a slam dunk delete. Cullen328 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share the articles? They aren't listed on the talk page nor in the article. tedder (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep The Oregonian article definitely seems have been published, but the archived version has succumbed to the usual O-vanish. We need a little more time to do digging, but the topic is most definitely a key part of modern Oregon cultural pride. It's become a symbol for the state. In other words, this was not just made up one day. Steven Walling 00:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to firm Keep after having seen the references added. Verifiably a part of the Oregon cultural firmament, not just a thing made up one day. Steven Walling 09:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not made up in a day, but I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing this other than the ones Steven Walling found. Searches for it were much more likely to turn up "Keep Portland Weird" as being notable- I found zero sites, other than those selling the stickers, that mention this. The two articles at the O (one that we can see, one that we can guess existed) are just a blip in time, the proverbial fluff piece. tedder (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible reference The Portland Upside, Stick to your dreams, Nicole Morales, January, 2010. This is a volunteer written newspaper, but seems to have professional editing. I am not sure if it should be considered a reliable source for Oregon news. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added references from two newspaper blog posts by The Oregonian, as well as the reference mentioned just above, and another about a corn maze in the shape of the emblem. I've added other information and an external link. The Democratic Party in Oregon adopted the emblem in 2008. In my opinion, this just passes notability now. Cullen328 (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to closing administrator If the decision is to keep, please capitalize "Oregon" in the title. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done already. Steven Walling 10:08, 28 November 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, T. Canens (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Not sure that Local coverage (and its pretyy limited for somethin 'popular' really is that stroing. But it does appear to have recvied some coverage. More sources would be usefull..Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has multiple RS, meets GNG. I can also personally attest that these stickers are relatively common (~0.2-1% penetration?) in the greater Portland area. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 5 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. Tone 15:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fltplan.com[edit]

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

Delete. Makes some claims of notability but still not sufficient to meet WP:WEB. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently a website for pilots to create flight plans on. References are to Internet directories and trade publications. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with listing trade publications? The^FSAviator • T 04:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a couple of hits on gnews. Some of these are in passing, but it suggests this could be notable. (I'm not sure if all flight trade publications are on gnews, if they aren't this could be more notable.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article creator is a probable SPA: Mrswrite (talk · contribs) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:30, 26 November 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) 01:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:N currently has secondary sources and gets good hit and a Google search. May require some re-write to meet WP:NPOV. Pol430 (talk) 17:13, 27 November 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, T. Canens (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:N as noted above. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been sourced and seems to be well-written. The^FSAviator • T 22:12, 7 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 withdrawn. Concerns addressed, appears he did exist! Thanks Lugnuts Nancy ^talk 12:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hale[edit]

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

Bio of a film actor. Something not quite right but can't confidently nail it as a complete hoax. List of awards is clearly fantasy and the dates for his parents don't stack up but some of the career stuff is plausible. Nancy ^talk 09:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and keep The original text had the "hilarious" text of "Hale won over ten Academy Awards, over thirty Oscar Awards..." Over 10? So 11? If that was true, then his article would have been created years ago and every single person would know who Richard Hale is. I've removed all the unsourced and hoax parts, and cleaned up the rest. I believe this person is notable per WP:ENT and having 130+ credits to his name too. Good work on spotting this in the first place - I'll add it to my watchlist for future monitoring. Would also be a good idea to check the article on Max Ryan, created by the same user. Lugnuts (talk) 10:14, 5 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. As per the suggestion given in this AfD, the article will be moved to S K Venkataranga Iyengar -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S K Venkatrangiengar[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography fails to meet WP:N guidelines, cited external links not reliable sources to establish notability in and of themselves, web searches turn up no notable articles about this person. Article is a longstanding orphan that has received little attention. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems to be the usual spelling of the subject's name in English: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- If he was a member of Mysore's constituent assembly, he meets WP:POLITICIAN. But i am not able to find any sources for that (though it is likely). If i can find the sources, will change my vote.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's hard to find sources - I added a few minor ones to the article - but it's clear from Google and Google Books [7] that he was a very active lawyer and pled many prominent cases. There may even be a street named for him in Bangalore, but it's possible it was named for an ancestor. It's really hard to find reliable sources because of the timeframe in which he was active, but I think he was notable. If kept, the article should be renamed S K Venkataranga Iyengar as per Phil Bridger. Iyengar seems to be a common surname or clan name among the Hebbar Iyengars. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 4 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, T. Canens (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the page was recently moved from S K Venkatrangiengar to S. K. Venkatrangiengar. However, I still think the page should be moved again (if kept) to the name he was most commonly known by, namely S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on the weak previews available on Gbooks, he appears to be a notable lawyer, including entries in a couple of notable yearbooks (from the Times of India). However, I can't get sufficient content from the previews to add anything to show notability. He wasn't a member of the first assembly of the Mysore State, per this, he contested as an independent candidate but did not win the election. If kept, the article should be moved to S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar. —SpacemanSpiff 18:39, 7 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 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aurore Mudiayi Bukassa[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography (already around here for 5 years). I tried, but couldn't find any reliable third-party sources on the internet that would help to establish notability. The book this person wrote is not listed anywhere, so the article is about a non-notable author. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Difficult even to verify. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search finds only social media and other self-referential sources - plus of course this article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't fine independent sources to verify or demonstrate the notability of this author. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:48, 12 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matched betting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources can be found for this term. Don't redirect to betting exchange because they're not that strongly related. Maybe needs salting afterwards because it keeps being recreated. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to betting exchange per previous AfD result, and it would seem to be a more common usage of the term. Indef protection maybe required to prevent recreation, since temporary protection was obviously ineffective. _wjemather^bigissue 18:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to arbitrage betting. Concept seems to be covered there. _wjemather ^bigissue 14:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would strongly object to the deletion of this article. Please do your research thoroughly first, before suggesting that there are no reliable sources for this term.

Matched betting is a well-known term which is commonly used in by professionals. There are reliable sources, including:

The Guardian, a UK National Newspaper http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jun/05/free-world-cup-bets-bookmakers http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jul/24/free-bets-bookies

MoneySavingExpert.com, the most popular personal finance website in the UK http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=325861

Other sources which use this term include: http://www.money-for-nothing.info/2009/03/ive-discovered-matched-betting.html http://www.stoozing.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1207161554/150 http://www.freebetoffers.co.uk/online-betting/matched-betting.htm http://www.betgem.com/Matched_Betting.html http://www.beatbookie.net/betting-guides/risk-free-matched-betting-guide/ http://winningbetfair.com/matched-betting-the-safest-way-to-make-money-from-betting http://www.offthepost.info/2010/11/beat-the-bookies-with-matched-bets-and-freebets4all/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyhamster (talk • contribs) 11:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Guardian sources qualify as reliable sources. The second of those though isn't so bad even if it is a bit spammy and simple. There isn't much there to construct an article without going into OR territory--like many of the gambling articles. It may well be used by people but the intricacies of betting isn't really well-covered by RS's and that is supposed to be reflected here. Less inclined to delete now though. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Christopher, the Guardian is a very reliable source. I wouldn't immediately knock Moneysavingexpert as it is a collective effort that requires individual judgement, like with all collaborative works or threads. It is worth noting that the term 'matched betting' is widely used amongst individuals - whether they are gamblers or not. Since there is no other term that is used for matched betting, and indeed nor does this significantly relate to anything else, I would strongly recommend that this is not deleted for benefit or reference to others. 20:31, 1 December 2010 (GMT)

Firstly, the forums on moneysavingexpert.com are in no way a reliable source. Secondly, the first line of the article states "also referred in the United States as double betting", so evidently there is another term for it. Thirdly, the term "matched betting" also refers to the way betting exchanges match backers to layers. Finally, while the concept is described almost entirely in forums, blogs and promotional websites, there is no way this will pass verifiability requirements on its own. One brief mention in The Guardian and an equally short follow-up article just isn't going to do it. _wjemather ^bigissue 20:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This topic is already covered by the article with the more common name (at least in the UK), arbitrage betting. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was not aware of that article's existance. Perhaps an improved/expanded section and a redirect to there may be a better option. _wjemather ^bigissue 20:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Many thanks for your comment. I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you, as matched betting is strictly not arbitrage betting and must not be confused. The two are completely different methodologies. Matched betting in this context refers to taking advantage of free bookmaker offers, by qualifying for them and turning them into cash by hedging against any loss so that there is a guaranteed profit. It is based on the concept that you use a betting exchange to hedge losses and as the free bet is not your own money, you can make a profit.

Arbitrage is the practice where individuals would take advantage of a price differential between two or more markets. By doing this, individuals can profit on the imbalance. It is a simple case of supply and demand - individuals identify a market which is prepared to pay a higher price for a utility (economics term) and identifies a market that offers that at a lower price. They then simply buy lower and sell high, making the percentage margin.

Thus in arbitrage, the profit comes from the difference in margin. However in matched betting, the profit comes from turning the free bet into with-drawable cash by hedging any losses - so that if the bet at the bookmaker loses, the betting exchange pays out, and vice versa.

If you look at the example given in the article, the mathematics and methodologies of matched betting is different to that of arbitrage. However, given this comment, I would suggest adding a line in noting that this should not be confused with arbitrage betting.

Sorry, but what is described in this article is a form of arbing with the effective price in one of the markets involved being influenced by a free bet offer. It is described at Arbitrage betting#Bonus sports arbitrage. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the section I was thinking about. Still desparately short of reliable sources though. _wjemather ^bigissue 19:11, 2 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, Sandstein 08:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Although the description in [[Arbitrage betting#Bonus sports arbitrage] describes what is on this article, I would argue that it is incorrect. Arbitrage, as Wikipedia clearly states on its opening sentence, is "Betting arbitrage, miraclebets, surebets, sports arbitraging is a particular case of arbitrage on betting markets due to either bookmakers' different opinions on event outcomes or plain errors."

However, free offer Matched betting, as described in this article, does not rely on bookmakers different opinions (quite the opposite in fact as it seeks consensus on similar odds - the closer, the better), nor does it rely on errors. Ergo Matched betting cannot be arbitrage of any kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyhamster (talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I would also like to bring to the attention of everyone contributing within this discussion, an article published today in the Daily Telegraph, which references 'Matched Betting' as a term used to describe this method of converting offers into cash. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/8185280/Is-this-a-bet-you-cant-lose.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyhamster (talk • contribs) 10:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above comment. The article referenced is recent and from a credible source and it would appear that matched betting is clearly a commonly used term. Given the recent addition regarding 'industry reactions' which gives this contribution sufficient depth, I would suggest that this contribution is remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.42.98 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That articledoes not go into depth (just a general overview), borders on being an advert for Carl Scott-Brown's website, and barely touches on industry reactions (a WilHill spokesperson intimates they couldn't care less). We are still no where near the significant coverage required by the general notability guideline. _wjemather ^bigissue 20:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it's a general overview, it is one of the more informative pieces you will ever find within the mainstream media along with the Guardian piece. Also, it is not an advert for Scott-Brown's website, rather as it is an editorial piece about it. We should disregard references to the website and extract the research that the journalist has done - for example, the risks of matched betting, the fact that it is legal and that bookmakers don't have a problem with it. The user suggests 'a WilHil spokesperson intimates they couldn't care less', when the article clearly says 'the industry does not have a problem with [matched betting]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyhamster (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 December 2010

Comment. Having done some more research, "matched betting" follows generally the same process as arbitrage betting with one difference – the use of free bets, which negates the requirement to find mis-matched odds. As such I further ensorse my !vote above and say again that this can be adequately covered in an expanded section in the arbitrage betting article. _wjemather ^bigissue 20:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please sign any comments appropriately. The reference arbitrage betting does not correspond with the definition on the page as "Betting arbitrage, miraclebets, surebets, sports arbitraging is a particular case of arbitrage on betting markets due to either bookmakers' different opinions on event outcomes or plain errors.". Whilst the existing reference can be developed, the size of the page would become significant and not cover the concept (with an example) in the depth it has here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyhamster (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 December 2010

You're right, this article as it stands contains far too much instructional content. I have added the appropriate tag. _wjemather ^bigissue 15:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I take your point and I will see how this could be edited, although the 'how to' content is merely an example to present the concept of matched betting as simple as possible. Any thoughts or comments would of course, be appreciated. Sonyhamster (talk) 22:17, 12 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 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lines of equal latitude and longitude[edit]

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

User:Skookum1 is on record as considering this article to be sh*t, I dont, but as a courtesy to the the user I feel this should be opened up for discussion Crusoe8181 (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the exact quote is No sources are provided as to why this is even a field of study that any reliable source gives a s**t about. (Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment and Strong Delete I don't need you speaking for me, Crusoe8181. This article is a specious abstraction, geo-sophistry and nothing else, with cites only supporting factoids which string together the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and WP:Undue weight nature of the piece; no actual cites of actual papers discussing this topic by any reputable/reliable academic sources. There's way too much weight placed on the contents as if they meant anything real and were somehow something more than the equation of (latlong) = -(latlong) and tracing a calculus equation on the earth's surface as if it were a topic for intellectual discussion. It's a fabrication, an abstraction, a petty notion given far too much weight and dressed up with fancy language. This is not an encyclopedic topic, it's a speculation/conjecturation only, and not a field of study (except, apparently, for you).Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as a "courtesy to the user" you should not have quoted him before he actually made his own appearance here, and shouldn't have quoted him in such a biased fashion. "Courtesy" is not speaking about someone until they've spoken themselves....Skookum1 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly trivial and (unsurprisingly) unreferenced. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary and meaningless concept bordering on numerology, on which nothing has been written. EEng (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is based on the structure of Category:Lines of latitude and Category:Lines of longitude articles e.g. 85th_meridian_west, the vast majority of which are unreferenced and do not need references as they are self-referencing via the coordinate links. That a Canadian professional geographer should choose to base his own article here on our article and describe the subject as two imaginary lines that are incredibly fascinating so shortly after the article was written would seem to be a powerful validation of notability and interest. It is heartening when our work is picked up so quickly by the wider professional community, when sometimes we feel that that our flowers may be doomed to bloom in darkness (Crusoe8181 (talk)).

A single eference to the article under consideration for deletion, against a background of no other references to the idea beyond those by the idea's originator, merely underscores the lack of attention outside Wikipedia -- as well as our responsibility to not become inadvertant vehicles for publicity for things which otherwise would go unnoticed. EEng (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely unlikely, useless topic and, as one would expect, no reliable source or other claim to notability. Hans Adler 15:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This line has no special properties (unlike, say, Rectangles of equal length and width) so it is unsurprising that the academic community are uninterested in it. We should be too. pablo 16:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Skookum. Kmusser (talk) 18:29, 11 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. The consensus is that this is not an arbitrary or trivial intersection -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Jewish entertainers[edit]

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

Per recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers‎‎. If anything, this intersection is even less notable and more arbitrary than "Jewish American entertainers". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Pretty much for the same exact reasons stated in the AfD for List of Jewish American entertainers ...with one thing to add. The "British Jewish" connection seems much more synthesized than the "Jewish American" one. Jewish American is well-defined -- a distinct ethnic & cultural group that many consider themselves part of. British Jews appears to be drafted on a minimal amount of sources and a lot of OR - making the "entertainer" intersection even worse. Bulldog123 09:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, please also note WP:LISTCRUFT. IZAK (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the result of the recent AfD for American Jewish entertainers, and per WP:NOTDIR as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. SnottyWong ^verbalize 14:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as non-trivial intersection per here, here, here, and here, among many others. (I'm aware of the Jewish-American entertainers AfD, I didn't comment in that because of self-imposed abstinence over the canvassing issue, and if it's relevant to anyone I believe that was wrongly decided, on the basis that there a huge number of books covering the topic of Jewish-American entertainers in detail - for Heaven's sake, it was the subject of an Emmy-nominated Simpsons episode, is how ingrained in the popular consciousness it is - and it's immensely disappointing that no one bothered to look.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's go one by one. Your first link is to this book Jewish Theatre. I used the google search-inside method and couldn't find any explicit references to British Jewish entertainers/actors/etc - so I don't know why you provided that link. This is not a List of people associated with Jewish theatre. Your second link is this book on Jewish centers & peripheries: Europe between America and Israel fifty years ... By Selwyn Ilan Troen. The phrase "Jewish entertainers" or "Jewish actors" shows up exactly once, providing no information whatsoever on this intersection. Your third link Hollywood V. Hard Core: How the Struggle Over Censorship Created the Modern ... By Jon Lewis again mentions Jewish entertainers or actors once... and only to mention that they changed their name to fit in. Your fourth link is to a documentary about "Jewish entertainers" [8]. Of course, neither you nor I have seen it so there's not a lot to say. However, the synopsis suggests it focuses heavily on Yiddish theatre. This is not a List of British actors in Yiddish theatre. Bulldog123 06:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk | Contribs ) 10:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as the already deleted entry. Non-notable intersection.Griswaldo (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I'm a little stunned to find that the List of Jewish American entertainers article has been deleted. Jewish immigrants have had a long and successful association with the entertainment business in the United States, particularly in the film industry. Why wouldn't we want to cover that?—RJH (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that list, with 556 refs? See the discussion at the AfD referenced above, for views on both sides.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And restore the List of Jewish American entertainers. Why was it deleted and not the List of Italian American entertainers? or the List of Muslim writers and poets? or British Jews or List of Irish American actors? Note that the Irish American actors list includes many actors whose ancestors immigrated to the U.S. before Ireland became a country. What about List of British Bangladeshis, and List of black Britons, and List of British Indians and British Kurds and British Arabs??? How odd of Wikipedia to choose the Jews and only the Jews to delete. Grow up and come to grips with the fact that Jews are members of a religion and of a people that achieved statehood in ancient times and again in 1948. Treating Jews differently than other peoples (Arabs, Irish) and other religions is called anti-Semitism.Wm.Pittman (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish American entertainers, List of British Arab entertainers, List of British American entertainers? Anti-semitism you say? Bulldog123 21:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Wm.Pittman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Two days old. See: [9]. Bulldog123 06:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable intersection. No identification criteria (never will be, as it is subjective, unlike citizenship).--Therexbanner (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, Wikipedia doesn't necessarily have a problem with subjective criteria. Much like issues of religion and names, we resolve issues like this by reference to how the person self-identifies and how they are described in reliable sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't stated what criteria you want for this list (if it were to be kept). And why do you assume you can get a consensus on that criteria? Bulldog123 00:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no business of mine to define the criteria; that's a job for the talk page, rather than the AfD. But clearly the list is CAPABLE of having clearly defined criteria, as there's no serious debate anywhere that we're capable of defining the terms "British", "Jewish" and "entertainer" separately. I'd suggest it be handled in the same way as any other page where these issues come up - by reference to the way the individual self-identifies, and how they are described in the reliable sources. If you've got reliable sources calling them "British", "Jewish" and "an entertainer", then bingo, they're on the list, if necessary with a printed caveat detailing other sources that disagree. The ability to add that caveat, and the sources, is a strong reason why this should be dealt with as a list rather than as a category. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a chance, scroll through TALK:List of British Jews, and you'll see just how contentious users can be regarding the criteria. It's been a virtual stalemate for years, and that's what Jayjg is trying to point out here. That this article is an ever-repeating magnet for WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and (in some ways) WP:V violations. I know that you have faith in people's ability to reach a consensus... but it's blind faith. The article (British Jews) has been around for almost four years (maybe more?) and we have yet to agree on a criteria. It's simply not going to happen. Look, we couldn't even reach a consensus on List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Why on earth do you expect us to reach an agreed-upon criteria for this? Bulldog123 01:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That an article is on a contentious issue and attracts strongly divergent views is not reason for deletion. Otherwise, we would delete the articles on abortion, Israel, and everyone named George Bush. If anything, Wikipedia readers benefit from such articles existing, especially when those editing them edit honestly and in good faith.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That an article is incapable of finding a unifying criteria by which to include its listified entries, leading to numerous WP:BLP and WP:V violations... that is a legitimate reason. Bulldog123 02:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. There is no difference between the difficulty in determining inclusion criteria for "British Jew" and determining the inclusion criteria for either "British" or "Jew" separately. There are any number of things on Wikipedia that editors have different opinions or, or definitions of. If we were to avoid providing content wherever there are fundamental disputes about core aspects of the content, the result would be the removal of almost every article on race, religion, war, politics and evolution. If you can't sway others to your viewpoint as to what should and shouldn't be in the article, it may be that you're wrong, or at least that you're not sufficiently right that there's a public interest in the debate continuing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of British Jews is not under consideration here, so any difficulty with determining who is a British Jew is not a problem specific to this list, and there is no reason to delete it in isolation. If you really think who is a British Jew is unverifiable, then list the whole structure for deletion rather than picking a sublist at random. postdlf (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The non-triviality of the intersection is obvious. A wp:before search would have shown it, Dust provides some examples, and the intro now provides additional examples of its non-triviality for over a century. More is reflected in any of numerous google searches one could undertake, but which--given the above--seems redundant and unnecessary. In addition, the fact that the list is accessed typically 150-300 times per day suggests that it is indeed notable in the eyes of wikipedia readers. Agree with Pitman that someone should undertake to have the close of the List of Jewish American entertainers overturned.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should probably wait on the outcome of the List of Jewish Actors deletion review. Also, page hits are not evidence of notability. I used to run a blog that got about 1,000 hits a day, and I can assure you it still wasn't notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A relevant intersection backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Bulldog123 23:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be bothered to scroll up, the diff is here. And I'm quite willing to provide another half-dozen once you provide any cogent explanation of what's wrong with those. Or, y'know, even read them. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to be snide, I advise you pay closer attention. It's beginning to look like trolling. As you well know, I could find left-handed-actor refs stronger than those. Bulldog123 00:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've made no effort to read the sources, as your statements about their contents are just plain wrong, and you spend some time excoriating a "documentary" which I'm not sure where you got it from but was certainly not something I linked. You also seem to be suffering from a difficulty with the term "entertainer", which Wikipedia handily defines as anyone engaged in "activity which provides a diversion or permits people to amuse themselves in their leisure time", thus including by definition anyone engaged in the craft of theatre whether an actor or otherwise. The sources detail roles for British Jewish entertainers on stage, the building of specific Jewish theatres specifically to provide venues for British Jewish entertainers. "Jewish Theatre" spends a whole book just defining exactly who British Jewish entertainers are and what, exactly, makes a distinctly recognisable cultural group. Yiddish Theatre is a book length examination of an entire style of theatre by and for the Jewish, with substantial discussion of its history in Britain and the entertainers who have engaged with it. "Destination London" looks (in part) at how Jewish emigres fleeing World War II assimilated in Britain through a contribution to the British film industry. "Beyond marginality: Anglo-Jewish literature after the Holocaust" contains discussion of British Jewish writers, screenwriters, playwrights, performance poets, and comedians in the context of them being "Anglo-Jewish". Do you really have problems with these sources?- DustFormsWords (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...you spend some time excoriating a "documentary" which I'm not sure where you got it from but was certainly not something I linked. With that comment, you just proved how disingenuous your "source finding" efforts are. The documentary was the very first link you provided. Presumably, you just typed "British Jewish entertainers" into google, pulled that up and linked to it without noticing that the entire article is about the documentary. We can all type "British Jewish entertainers" into Google Books and claim whatever shows up as evidence of a universally known intersection, but it's not going to convince anybody who actually looks into it. Also "excoriating" means to "censure or criticize severely." I'd love to see where I "severely criticized" the documentary. I just said I haven't seen it, so I can't comment on it. You've seen it?
You've made no effort to read the sources I can only read up to what the limited view allows me, as can you (though, judging by your comments above - all you did was read the provided synopsis and synthesized the words "British Jewish" in).
The sources detail roles for British Jewish entertainers on stage, the building of specific Jewish theatres specifically to provide venues for British Jewish entertainers. Page # link of said content please, including explicit references to British Jewish entertainers (using the wiki definition). If it's as thorough as you claim, that's great content for British Jewish theatre - though, since you're getting it from one source, it's pretty weighty. However, I'd like to know what any of this has to do with George Michael, Sharon Osbourne, Stephen Fry, Ludwig Karl Koch, Peter Sellers, Stephen Frears, Mark Ronson, Peter Green, Amy Winehouse, Rachel Weisz, Mike Mendoza Sophie Okonedo, and the other hundred people on that list. This is not a list of people having "some connection to British Jewish/Yiddish theatre." If you want to make it into that list, you're going to need to find consensus on it's take page, and from all the !keep voters here. I feel like a broken record, since I distinctly remember saying this already. Right now, the current list we have under AfD is an indiscriminate list of people who are Jewish and who are - by the definition you gave - "entertainers." That's the list under consideration now. That's the list that has been edited and maintained for years now. That's the list that most !keep voters are going to be fighting for... not your as-of-yet-to-exist list. If you want another list, under the criteria you specified, nobody is preventing you from creating it... but it's going to need a less ambiguous title that List of British Jewish entertainers. Bulldog123 04:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess some of us just rely on skimming Google Books, and some of us find sources on Google Books, and then research the books on bookseller websites, review sites, and ring their friends at the National Library and get them to check what they're actually about. I don't apologise for being in the second category. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable and not arbitrary. The intro to the list goes a long way towards establishing that there is a distinct cultural history here. In any event, this is an encyclopedic indexing of article subjects: a list of notable people of a particular notable ethnic group, subdivided by occupation. And that's enough. Many of the deletion arguments I see in this, and similar list AFDs, are proper ones for the deletion of categories given the limitations of that system and the problem of burdening articles with too many categories (see WP:OCAT), but there is no good reason or pragmatic need to apply the same standards to lists. Nor do we in practice; in most cases that categories are deleted on the basis of being an encyclopedic but non-notable intersection, the CFD usually results in a consensus for conversion to a list ("listifying"). I have some concern about the vagueness of "entertainer", but that's fixable, and I'm not going to bother with that now if none of the deletion comments are concerned with that nuance. postdlf (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, encyclopeadic, and better sourced than the American Jewish one. per Dustformswords, Epeefleche and Postdlf. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly not arbitrary, & it is probably correct that in the UK the demarcation is even sharper. There is not really a consensus about ethnic-occupation lists of this sort, but I think the balance is now towards accepting them. Obviously not indiscriminate, as it includes only those with a Wikipedia article. I adhere very strongly to the concept of notability as important for Wikipedia articles, & if we have articles on those who are not, we should deal with them. But while they stand, that's how we discriminate. "Jewish" can be a little more complicate than some ethnic categories, but ithis can be dealt with by using the broadest definition possible, and accepting any RS unjless its a living person, & they object to it. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's assertion that British Jews are an arbitrary and non-notable selection of people is absurdly counterfactual. One can immediately find sources such as The Jews of Britain which prove the falsity of this assertion. The nomination makes no policy-based argument and seems directly contrary to core policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:IMPROVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must be at the wrong AfD. However, Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/British Jews doesn't seem to exist. Bulldog123 09:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your own contribution above, you state, "The "British Jewish" connection seems much more synthesized than the "Jewish American" one.". You don't even mention the entertainer aspect. It seems clear that this nonsensical crusade is directed against the concept of Jewry - attempting to expurgate it from Wikipedia. I have therefore addressed this as it is the substantive point. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my crusade - despite 4 of the 6 recent Jewish AfDs being nominated by different people - is to "wipe out Jewry from Wikipedia." Judging from this Two indef blocks already?, you're clearly not mature enough to be editing this encyclopedia, much less have your opinions be taken seriously. Bulldog123 18:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the group notice for AFD edits, "Be aware ... that comments on people rather than the article is considered disruptive." Hmm, must fix the grammar of that. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the information here is highly sourced, and those who have worked on this page have put forth such an effort to source this information that it clearly belongs. Linda Olive (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsourced" is not the reason for deletion. Bulldog123 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination claims that the topic is "less notable...". Notability turns on sourcing and so the sources are indeed material and relevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 12 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 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neurophysiology of Movement Lab[edit]

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

A small laboratory within a single department at a university. The article does not give its web page, but it is [10]. What it seems to be, judging also from the department web site [11], is the laboratory of a single professor, Roger M. Enoka--who is notable, but hardly the suite he works in. (the article on him is a copyvio from http://physed.otago.ac.nz/alumni/wof/inductees/2010RogerMaroEnoka.html, and I have so marked it). The department as a whole is unlikely to be notable, and certainly not the subdivisions of it. There's nothing worth even redirecting. The author is an SPA, whose other contributions are an article on another member of the department which I have not yet checked for copyvio, and an article on the just possibly notable building it is located in, Carlson Gymnasium--but the contents of that article seems to be mainly a directory of the occupants of the building. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Even individual university departments are generally not sufficiently notable to have separate article about them, and this one is a small lab within a department. Nsk92 (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:09, 6 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. Tone 15:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Predator technology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This entire article consists of fictional world trivia. The main article, Predator (alien), has the type of short summary of the topic that is appropriate for wikipedia. This entire article is fictional topic with no real-world notability. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to annex.wikia.com 65.94.47.218 (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Here's the link: [12][reply]
Good call. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikia isn't a sister project of Wikipedia though (even though it was also founded by Jimmy Wales), so I don't think you can transwiki Wikipedia articles to it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dondegroovily's rationale is pretty spot-on: The thing is almost entirely sourced only to the primary source material (the films & comics themselves). What little real-world info there is (as far as design & prop creation) is already present in the main article about the creatures & in the articles about the films. I nominated this for merging a couple years ago but never got around to actually merging it, & looking at it now I don't really think there's anything of value to merge (the real-world info already being present in the target articles). Having an article on the fictional creatures is fine; having a separate article devoted entirely to their weapons & gizmos is superfluous. As for transwikiing, we only transwiki to other Wikimedia Foundation projects, to which Wikia does not belong (as Erpert points out, though it was also founded by Jimmy Wales, Wikia is operated by Wikia, Inc., not by the WMF, the major diffeerence being that Wikia, Inc. is for-profit while the WMF is non-profit). If Wikia wants this content, they can quite easily copy it for themselves under the terms of the GFDL. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way for them to also copy the page history, since that is a major issue with GDFL here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, and frankly I'm not concerned about whether Wikia wants or is able to get this content. As mentioned, Wikia isn't a Wikimedia Foundation project, it's a totally separate entity, and we only transwiki to other WMF projects. If Wikia wants this content, they can request it from Wikipedia under the terms of the GFDL. The issue at play here is whether this content is appropriate for Wikipedia, not whether other, unrelated websites might want it. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- two words: Excessive Fancruft. This article is nothing but an indiscriminate collection of fictional trivia. Reyk _YO! 08:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft that's impossible to WP:verify notability due to a lack of third party sources.

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. The consensus is that as Stevenson was recognised as the world's oldest person for a short time, they meet the notability criteria and should remain in Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Stevenson[edit]

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

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete as nom 5-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are unreliable GRG (2) and OHB, and one unlinked Guardian article not likely to support most of the WP article. WP:BIO failure alluded in 2007 at article talk. JJB 05:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources used are from the GRG and Rejuvenation Research, a peer-reviewed journal (reliable source). The GRG itself is also a reliable source on longevity issues since its data is used by Guinness World Records. The article also has a reliable source from The Guardian. Therefore I do not know what you allude to when you say there is "no more than one reliable source". You appear to have set up dozens of AFDs on similar articles and have addressed them with the same statement. The statement that you opened this AFD up with does not match the article that you are nominating for deletion. Please highlight where the WP:OR and the WP:SYN are. As with many other articles, the reasons you give do not stand because they are not relevant to the article. Crusading your way through longevity-related articles is not a way to solve any personal issues that you may or may not have with editors involved in these sorts of articles. SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Welcome Siamese; your points need separate rebuttals.

First, please thread comments, rather than replying earlier in threads than notes that preceded you (now corrected).
It appears your statement is the one that doesn't match the article, because the article doesn't cite Rej Res in any place.
Please see RSN: GRG spreadsheet lines are unreliable primary coredumps.
- Your concern that GWR employs GRG was also proposed and rejected at that link.
You did not answer my concern that the Guardian is unlinked contrary to WP:V.
- Incidentally, Guardian is also 1985 and thus probably primarily about Williams rather than Stevenson.
For "reliable sources" perhaps you would prefer "independent, nonconflicted reliable sources", as it usually means.
I have only begun 19 carefully chosen AFDs so far (yes I assisted recent deletions begun by 3 other editors).
I abandoned total boilerplating in this salvo in favor of providing article-specific reasons in each case.
All 5 sentences are OR/SYN because unreliably sourced:
- Birth and death dates may appear in Guardian, but unlinked article is probably not about Stevenson.
- "Oldest recognised living person after death of Mateo".
- "Record broken by Williams in 1985" may be in Guardian in some form, but who is their primary?
- "Succeeded in title by Watkins", as if "oldest recognised living" is a "title" in any reliable source.
- "Last person born before 1863" is IMHO an Ryoung122 special.
As already stated, my reasons are relevant to the article, and, as rebutted, yours are not.
Please do not paint my attempts to conform a sorely-neglected topic area to basic (NPOV) policy as "crusading".
Personal issues are not in play here, nor should they be brought in by guessing at my motives beyond policy compliance.

I generally respect your independent views. Please don't make so many errors at once. JJB 16:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The GRG discussion seems to me to be a case of flipping a coin 20 times until it comes up heads. Wikipedia is about to and fro between opposite sides to reach a suitable medium. This 'discussion' seems to be an undiplomatic one-sided argument against the GRG, and as a tangent from your disputes with User:RYoung122, who you interestingly make a personal remark about in this discussion - a user that you are currently in Arbitration against. Please remember that you should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
Having unlinked articles is in no way contrary to WP:V. Wikipedia relies on sources that are available both online and offline. To solely rely on online sources would be recentism. As notability is not temporary and since the internet was not available in the 1970s, it is unsurprising that few citations are available online. Many other articles rely on offline material, such as books.
Birth and date deaths are given by the GRG (as is that she succeeded Mateo), and other such journals as Rejuvenation Research and Population: An English Selection[13]. If the word "title" is not suitable, then you are free to edit the article to improve it. Generally the first step of any Wikipedian should be to help improve articles than nominate batches for deletion. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's only reliable source is an unlinked article, which does not establish notability. Inclusion in lists is sufficient. Neptune5000 (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Neptune. The footnotes to GRG web pages and the external link to the OHB page are now-familiar hallmarks of longevity-cruftstubs. Neither is a reliable source. Charitably, they are primary sources, prohibited as the sole source for any information in an article, per WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Less charitably, they are not reliable sources because they are the self-published work of a cadre of niche enthusiasts. The pages display few, if any, of the attributes defined in WP:RS. The World's Oldest People wikiproject talk page is now host to an effort to prune back the worst of what's become a dreadfully dense WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Please review the table of proposed and resolved afds there for recent similar discussions to this one. There's a reassuring sameness to the results. The gears grind slowly, but the system works. David in DC (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The GRG is considered reliable by Guinness World Records, the New York Times, the BBC, the Tokyo Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc. Comments about "cruftstubs" and "neither is a reliable source" are little more than opinionated defamation contrary to established fact. If you are unable to process this information correctly, then you are little more than a monkeywrench in the system...not only opposed to the established international system that determines notability for "world's oldest persons" but also against Wiki policy which grants the task of determining notability to "outside sources," NOT your personal opinion. As we saw on the Margaret Skeete AFD page, you offered personal opinions to denigrate the article. Is it too difficult for you to realize that this is similar to a "witch hunt," where for you or JJ or even those in 2007, all they can do is heap false accusations. In time, the 2007 cabal turned back when they realized they were wrong. How long will it take for you to do the same?76.17.118.157 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was the recognised oldest living person in the world and oldest Briton ever. A notable person. Amply documented. — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam46136 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the first and last of these nine AFDs, applicable to all and intended to be read by all closers. I am too angry at WP's systemic failure, as shown in these AFDs, for me to provide the full analysis necessary. The short form is that there is significant evidence of canvassing, and that I will need to present it to a different forum than to the AFD closer(s). The majority of these AFDs have had not a single keep comment provide a reliable source, and in the remainder there has been no evidence that a new source or two confers notability (except for David in DC's judgment in one case). Those who have commented at the WikiProject have all agreed with the formulation of GNG that makes all of these articles still deletes, or potential merges in a couple cases. Any appearance of consensus, if it still remains after the evidence of canvassing, SPAs, arguments to avoid, and distractions ad nauseam is accounted for, is the result of an endemic, years-long infiltration of walled-garden builders into WP, as documented (in part) at the open ArbCom case that discusses this very behavior. I have manifold reasons for my conviction that these are neither consensus keeps nor nonconsensus keeps but in fact GNG failures that should be deleted or merged and will be; one reason that comes to mind is that my last salvo of 8 AFDs with exactly the same GNG failures were all deleted, in accord with the many many AFDs linked in the nom. However, I rest secure in my knowledge that WP does the right thing in the long run, even if any closer is not able to appreciate all the facts I have on hand to bear on these cases. JJB 06:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. World's oldest person in 1973 meets the definition of notability, even if the sources were from the pre-internet age. What needs to be done is to tag the article for sourcing, and to give the article creator a courtesy month to upgrade it.

As for JJ's comments above, there is clear evidence of HIS canvassing and recruiting (such asking Grismaldo or DavidinDC to join), bullying, intimidating others, etc. For example, comments like this:

‘thank you, but you’re in the wrong place’ and ‘you’re part of a group and that doesn’t count’.

In reality, it's the other way around: most, if not all, of these people found supercentenarians through Wikipedia first, so if they later joined a group it is irrelevant.

Those are comments directed at other Wikipedia editors, rather than to the discussion of the article notability.

Throw in mass-nominations for deletion, i-voting for his own nominations, self-quoting his own policy proposals which haven't been accepted, and you have a smoke-and-mirrors funhouse, we might as well call JJ' world.

Because JJ believes that humans live to 950, as per the Bible, therefore he's attempting to delete all articles on age-verified supercentenarians.

Ryoung122 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once the world's oldest person. Don't see why it can't be kept. DHanson317 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that, as a person who was given credit, at one time, as being the world's oldest person, albeit only for a few months in 1973, she was notable even among supercentenarians. Mandsford 02:22, 13 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. The main argument presented for deletion is that the AP article is unlinked - however this does not make it unverifiable - WP:RS does not say that all sources have to be available on the Internet. If someone had read the AP article and were able to confirm that the details in that do not verify the article contents, then I'd be more inclined towards deletion, but the source would appear to be a valid one which could theoretically be verified should someone be willing to make the effort to do so. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denzo Ishizaki[edit]

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

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete as nom 6-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are unreliable OHB, and one unlinked (131-word) AP article not likely to support most of the WP article. Nonnotability and citation lack already tagged in article since 11/2007. JJB 05:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's only source is an unlinked 131-word AP article, which does not establish notability. Inclusion in lists is sufficient. Neptune5000 (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One unverifiable link, which is unlikely to carry all, or even most, of the "facts" in the article. The external link to the OHB list establishes, on its face, that it is not a reliable source as that term is defined on en.wikipedia. It says, in an introductory disclaimer, "These statistics were provided by Louis Epstein. Comments and corrections are welcome." It's hosted here on a site called recordholders.org. So Louis Epstein caused statistics that may need correction to appear on some kind of "record holders" web page. C'mon. Who argues in good faith that a wikipedia article should be based on one unverifiable, unlinked 131-word AP article and an external link to an advertisedly flawed list hosted on a site that looks like this?! I mean who with a lick of sense, anyway? David in DC (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was Japan’s oldest person and world’s oldest man. A notable person. Amply documented. — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam46136 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? David in DC (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9F%B3%E5%B4%8E%E4%BC%9D%E8%94%B5 http://spysee.jp/%E7%9F%B3%E5%B4%8E%E4%BC%9D%E8%94%B5/50481/ http://r25.yahoo.co.jp/keyword/detail/?kw=%E7%9F%B3%E5%B4%8E%E4%BC%9D%E8%94%B5 http://talent.yahoo.co.jp/pf/detail/pp246275 etc etc Cam46136 (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Cam46136[reply]

- - None of these are reliable sources. You can't cite to another language wikipedia. Spysee and Yahoo! are archetypes of what is not a reliable source. If there are reliable sources, you should rescue the article with them. But none of these qualify. David in DC (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Japan's oldest person AND the world's oldest man, Denzo Ishizaki qualifies TWICE for notability.

Notability is established by outside sources, not your opinion of longevity.

As noted earlier, DavidinDC has a COI as he was recruited/canvassed to these deletion efforts by JJBulten, who also "self-voted" for his own nomination, another COI.

There is INTERNATIONAL coverage of this case. In fact, this article should have been tagged for sources first, to give people time to look for them. This is just another bad-faith edit by JJBulten. Note also that JJ nominated a lot of articles on December 5 and posted the same message on each one, another violation of WP AFD policy which suggests that each article for deletion should be judged individually.Ryoung122 05:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoung122 05:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maude_Farris-Luse

in this article you can see that David in dc can change his mind sometimes and so did another editor, because of reliable sources, so you cant be too hard on David in dc, hes not totally bias, in fact hes really quite friendly when you look past his opposing views on most of these afds. Longevitydude (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was the world's oldest man. Longevitydude (talk) 12:33, 12 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 consensus is that the one source is not sufficient to verify the notability of Watkins. The 'keeps' do not (from what I can see) sufficiently demonstrate that RejRes is a sufficiently reliable source - and the comments at [[14]] would seem to say that it may or may not be reliable. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Watkins (supercentenarian)[edit]

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

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete as nom 3-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are unreliable RejRes (GRG-authored), GRG, and OHB. Nonnotability and citation lack already tagged in article since 11/2007. JJB 05:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to establish notability, fails WP:GNG. Neptune5000 (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, there's no reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Until and if your proposed guideline is adopted as policy, it should carry no weight in a deletion discussion. People are welcome to agree or disagree with it as they please, but anyone who disagrees with it is entitled to express their opinion in this AfD, whether or not they choose to comment on the proposal itself. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was the recognised oldest living person in the world and oldest person in the UK at one time. A notable person. Amply documented.Cam46136 (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Wiki policy on WOP's generally recognizes them as notable, as there is coverage worldwide.

There is also the option to "merge" to List of UK supercentenarians until the article is expanded. Deletion is not a correct outcome. There are several flaws in the pro-deletion argument:

--notability is not established by whether the article is sourced, but by whether reliable sources exist. Therefore, the first thing to do is to tag the article and notify the article creator that more sources are needed. Usually we give the article creator about a month, before an article is nominated for deletion. This did not happen here.

--JJBulten violated Wiki policies and guidelines, including voting on his own nomination and posting the same message to several different AFD discussions. It also appears that these nominations were in violation of WP:POINT.

As Elizabeth Watkins was recognized on the world scale as the world's oldest person, and citable coverage exists, the article should be kept, even if tagged as a stub and given time for cleanup.Ryoung122 16:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This case was featured in Guinness World Records in the 1970s and kept many years as the longevity recordholder for Northern Ireland.

Also, the assertion that Rejuvenation Research is "unreliable" is little than a smear. It is a highly-qualified outside source. It is not published by the GRG, but sometimes publishes material from the GRG.Ryoung122 16:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! More broadly,those of us who contribute to the GRG,to the IDL,to Rejuvenation Research,to the SRF and Planck-Institute meetings,etc. are the most reliable sources in the world on supercentenarians,and JJB can not credibly represent that any higher standard of scholarship on the subject exists.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable is a term of art on en.wikipedia. It does not meant the same thing as all of the definitions the word can have in various dictionaries. It mean, rather, that it complies with a specific rule, WP:RS. Experts are no doubt reliable for many things. They are not reliable sources for a wikipedia article unless they are quoted in a secondary source. Their (your) work, as raw data, is not reliable in the wikipedia sense, even if it is the embodiment of truth and beauty. Only if it is quoted elsewhere. Pleae see WP:TRUTH

No one is calling your work generically unreliable. It's simply not fit to back a fact on wikipedia until it's quoted in a WP:RS.

A whole lot of drama could be avoided if you and RY could try to understand that "not reliable" is no assessment of you or your work. It's about where your work is published. A scholarly, peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source for wikipedia. A list that says its statistics are supplied by you, on a page hosted by something called recordholders.org, is not a scholarly journal, nor any other kind of wikipedia-reliable source.

I'm guessing that this is falling on deaf ears. But I have to try. David in DC (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, DavidinDC, it is YOU with the deaf ears. Rejuvenation Research IS a secondary source. I don't publish it, I don't decide what they publish or not. If they ask for content, I provide it. I don't always get what I want in there.76.17.118.157 (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose relying on articles published in Rejuvenation Research. I don't know why you think I do. If I have, please show me where.

I oppose any citation or external link to the list of oldest human beings hosted at recordholders.org. It has none of the attributes of a reliable source and it falls well withing the dictates of WP:ELNO. David in DC (talk) 00:58, 13 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 consensus is to delete - no reliable sources are present, and none of those recommending keeping this were able to provide any, despite stating that Thiers was notable -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Thiers[edit]

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

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete as nom 11-sentence article mostly about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN with some nonnotable bio material. Sources are unreliable OHB, an article about the 19th Amendment not related to the subject, and a U of WI family archive (primary source?) insufficient to demonstrate notability. Citation lack already tagged in article since 12/2007. Article may be interesting but, if so, notability should be demonstrated by a plurality of reliable secondary sources. JJB 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. You're not supposed to vote on your own nomination. Also, the length of an article does not disestablish notability. This woman is listed as the world's oldest person and the first person to verifiably reach age 111. That establishes notability far more than sufficient for inclusion here. There's a reason people still remember this case some 80+ years later: because she was notable.Ryoung122 00:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one can certainly vote "delete as nom". No, "assertion of notability" is not "proof of notability"; the former prevents speedy deletion, the latter prevents AFD deletion, and you haven't shown the latter. Please correct the GNG failure with sources. JJB 03:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to establish notability, fails WP:GNG. Neptune5000 (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was the worlds first person to undisputedly make it to her 111th birthday, she was the worlds oldest living person. Longevitydude (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable. She was the first person on record to celebrate her 111th birthday. DHanson317 (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: DHanson317, your contributions to six AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in your six cases, the individual is in an average of seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 20:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Another POV agenda attack from JJ. This person is notable, as the first verified person to reach age 111. But you'd believe in verifiability, you believe in mythology, such as persons living to 950.

Also, you can't establish consensus with yourself, and then quote yourself as consensus. That's a circular fallacy.

Also, inclusion in a list doesn't mean a biography isn't needed...no one says that because Hank Aaron is in a list of home run hitters, RBI leaders, and runs scored leaders that "he's in enough lists already."Ryoung122 00:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simply note for readers that every point in this comment is either patent illogic, or logic already rebutted. JJB 03:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Im not trying to sound mean, but at least you could have presented diffs proving your claims, Robert Young backs up his claims with reliable sources, the two of you need to find some sort of compromise, we cant all be fighting like this, were tearing wikipedia apart. Longevitydude (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First person to reach 111. Oldest person in Wisconsin. A notable person. Amply documented. — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam46136 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Cam46136. As the first person to reach 111, she indeed is notable.

I concur with Robert Young's view of JJB's POV pushing...the subject of longevity is more accommodating to FACT, not MYTH/FICTION. As first verified person to reach 111, you, JJB, as a believer of humans living 950 years or more, might believe that Thiers' age isn't impressive. Wrong. As her article is sufficiently backed by sources, I see no reason why this should get an AfD. Brendan (talk, contribs) 14:56, 12 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. The consensus is to keep, but I would recommend that people find/use sources such as the Free Lance-Star and Daily Times articles as found by SiameseTurtle -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Skeete[edit]

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

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete as nom 7-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are an apparent mirror of WP or an unreliable source, and one 10-sentence LAX article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members). JJB 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's common Wiki policy NOT to ivote on your own deletions, but as usual you have no idea what COI is about. It's also preposterous for you to suggest that you can describe your proposed policies here but others must comment elsewhere.Ryoung122 00:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source in the article is 10 sentences long, which is not substantial. Inclusion in lists is fine. Neptune5000 (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 115 is notable as hardly anyone has reached it and she is 15th overall. DHanson317 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: DHanson317, your contributions to six AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in your six cases, the individual is in an average of seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep Another case of a pre-emptive AFD on a longevity-related article by User:John J. Bulten. Next time you submit batches of articles for AFDs, please do you own research to try and locate articles. [15][16] SiameseTurtle (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have the WP:BURDEN, especially when there are so many malformed WP articles to start with, and I am choosing to start with the simpler methods due to volume. Would you mind adding content to the article based on those links, so that I can consider what action they support (as I implied, merge can be considered if you do)? JJB 20:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  - Yes, you do. Please see WP:SOFIXIT, WP:ITJ, WP:SEP. There are templates that you can add to articles to alert others that more sources should be found. That takes far less time to do than an AFD, and it other Wikipedians the time to locate them, even if you did not try. If you see something that can be improved, improve it! SiameseTurtle (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple. First, a party who quotes SEP to make their problem someone else's problem is not quite getting the point. The burden is on the inserter, in this case, the person who inserts the sources in the AFD asserting they show notability. And it "takes far less time" to paste your links in the article typing one-sentence quotes from the articles than it does to paste them here with original arguments. Yes, I'll grant that by "find sources" above I unconsciously meant "find and insert sources", but even if your two obscure newspapers were added to the article, you have not proven notability or keep status: a short LAX plus two short locals does not necessarily equal significant coverage in independent reliable sources. According to the common deletion outcomes already linked, such a borderline case should be merged instead of kept, because if one main and two local sources are the best anyone can do in a week, it should remain a minibio, i.e., a list merge. There is also the issue that if I inserted I would be presuming upon what you see in the sources, when I might not see anything notable in the sources. If this were a fixit, I would change my position, but you haven't shown that fixing it would result in a notable full-keep article; in such a case deletion would improve the junk even if the sources were added.

We might save some time with a compromise. I could suspend my position that the local sources don't confer notability if you can suspend your keep and make it a merge. If you can agree with that, I would happily do the job that "takes far less time" by merging the sourced text plus details from the two locals into the "list of whatever-nation supercentenarians" and we could all go home early. But short of that, I'm going to need to insist that you interact with WT:WOP, in which a strong consensus was demonstrated in 2007 that articles with as much sourcing as you propose ended up getting merged rather than kept. The quality of the arguments has not changed, just the number of COI arguments against GNG policy. Since you're actually doing the legwork of finding sources, maybe I can count on you to accept the compromise (it "takes far less time") instead of defending a stub that hasn't been properly sourced for years. This might work for the other AFD you argued similarly on as well. JJB 17:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. JJBulten's arguments are fallacious on several fronts:

1. The GRG is a reliable source, as determined not just by ArbCom but by the BBC, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.

2. Notability is not established or disestablished by how well the article is written or whether it is completed. If the person is notable but lacking sources, the appropriate thing to do is to "tag" the article as a "stub," not delete it.

3. Your personal attack on DHanson317's "belief" is irrelevant, and you fail to mention that you are attempting to bias the same criteria you cite, which are recommendations you made, rather than Wikipedia policies.

4. Probably your WORST argument is the claim that if someone is in a list, biographical information is not needed. That's B.S. That's like saying that since Hank Aaron is in a home run list, we don't need an article on Hank. WRONG. Whether we need a biography on Margaret Skeete is not diminished by her statistical inclusion in a list; it is in fact enhanced by it...because people would like to know how she got so far up the list. It's called "human interest."

5. A death report may be a "one event," but if someone is reported for their age over several years, that does not constitute "one" event. Margaret Skeete was also the "oldest living American" longer than many people serve as prime minister (about two years).Ryoung122 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Would you mind citing that "ArbCom" decision you keep mentioning? I think you are instead referring to a 2007 RSN decision, but in any case current consensus is reflected at RSN 2010 and WP:WOP. 2. If what you say is "the appropriate thing", why don't you add the stub tag or add the sources yourself? You have never answered this question in any forum. 3. I said "implied belief", but it's really explicit rather than implicit, as several editors on several AFDs clearly argue adhoc for inherent notability; but these editors (including you) have always failed to abandon the adhoc by proposing and gaining consensus for topic-wide inherent-notability standards different from those I already linked at WP:WOP. Why don't you answer my question there by proposing a change on talk or project space? 4. Probably your worst argument is comparing these AFD subjects to Hank Aaron. If you or Siamese added sources that passed muster, we could talk about merge. 5. If. Why don't you add your sources? JJB 03:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. 1)The oldest person from Texas. 2)15th oldest ever. 3)The proponent of deletion has a personal agenda against articles about longevity.Japf (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japf, would you please provide sources telling me how you know whether I have a personal agenda? I am working straight from WP:GNG here. I also encourage you to comment at the WP:WOP links above. JJB 03:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep For John J. Bulten every supercentenarian is nonnotable, even Jean Calment. He and his friends nominate all these articles about supercentenarians, because of his religious believes. He believes the only notable elderly people are those mentioned in the bible, who claim to be minimum 130+ years old. Now where is the proof these people were really that old? What stops me from "requesting" deletion of articles of every single elderly person from the bible? Who says the genesis is a reliable source? I dont! I do not believe the ages claimed in the bible. And that is my right to believe this, because we live in a free world. So in name of the free world. Let us stop this battle once and for all. I vote to keep all these articles, because if they are deleted, things may get out of control. We are having a battle here against believers of aged people in the bible/genesis and believers of aged people in the current world. Just my two cents. Petervermaelen 07:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Peter, I'm going to reply only once to this identical comment you made on 5 AFDs, because you aren't saying anything about any of the articles themselves. You make several unfounded and negative statements about me and my motives and others, and several arguments inappropriate for AFDs. But I don't think that is your fault, because the kind of charges you make against us are very similar to those that arise from someone else, someone who may be influencing you to make them by proxy. I respect your appeal to the liberty of this world and proclaim to you that there is no battle on my side: these nominations are completely policy-based responses to longstanding notability failures, and any behavior you may perceive as battling will disappear as soon as a supermajority of editors starts defending such policies. If you want to help build Wikipedia, the steps I proposed in my nomination are: merge the sourced article text to a list article; or source the article better; or edit the notability and sourcing criteria of the WikiProject. Repeating the baseless charges I've heard often from others does not build WP. Thanks. JJB 10:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I think I discovered the source of your out-of-the-blue assertion that I want to delete Jeanne Calment (note spelling). Ryoung122 misinterpreted my proposed guideline, deleted here, as saying all supercentenarians should be deleted. I grant my statement was ambiguous and could be misinterpreted by the passionate; my clarification here shows that the intent is that supercentenarians do have inherent notability for inclusion in lists, additional to whether or not they also have ordinary notability to sustain biography articles, which of course would be sustained if so. Incidentally, since Ryoung122 let those ordinary notability guidelines stand while making this edit, they do indicate the deletion of all five AFDs you commented on, and not a soul has objected at WP:WOP or talk against the use of that guideline for the deletion of every nomination I've made (I grant Jan G. was debatable, but that was not my nom). I trust this clears up the misunderstanding and we can all be careful about making charges that we may have heard from others without asking the accused party what he meant first. Thanks. JJB 18:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply JJB. I do not always agree with you, because some references that you don't accept, I do accept (like the GRG). Sometimes it is a matter of a different interpretation or different opinion about certain sources. For example the GRG does contain valid documents about supercentenarians. I know this for sure, because I am a gerontology researcher and I do have private documents stored on my local PC belonging to Belgian supercentenarians. But due to the privacy laws the majority of documents cannot be used as sources for articles. I need the permission of the family or the court of first instance before I am even allowed to store most of these documents on my PC. If I do not have permission I wouldnt even be allowed to do just that. So one of the questions is: do we accept sources which cannot be posted on wiki or not? But of course I respect your opinion as to why articles should be deleted and or merged so the wiki rules are respected. We live in a democracy and everyone is free to have their own opinion. I believe the wiki moderators/administrators, have to make the final decisions whether to keep or delete certain articles. And whether we provided enough acceptable sources, yes or no. Sometimes there will be enough sources. Sometimes there won't be. If you believe an article has lack of sources, we will try to correct that. On other thing. You say I am using a proxy for my posts? If so, I want to say, I am not really making comments by proxy on purpose. I am making the comments at work and I guess my employer is using a proxy. Petervermaelen 07:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the ambiguity, I meant "proxy" as in saying your comments seemed to echo those of Ryoung122. I provided evidence that he had misunderstood something I said, and I didn't think you had committed the same misunderstanding, but believed that you had heard it from him instead. I appreciate your working with WP policies. One such policy is that, yes, a private document is emphatically not a WP source; although a GRG member might or might not create a reliable source, dependent on how that member publishes. JJB 15:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep Was the oldest American at one stage and the oldest from Texas. A notable person Amply documented.Cam46136 (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)— Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete She was old. She was the 14th oldest person in a large country. She's the oldest person ever to come from one of 50 states in one of 150+ countries. As of 2008, she was the oldest something. She married someone. Could someone pleae explain to me what's notable here? Would someone who was once the 14th oldest person in Djibouti be notable? What if she was also the oldest person ever from a particular canton (province?) (state?) (department?) of Djibouti? My judgment is no.

So why USA? Why Texas? I smell bias, unless the answer to the Djibouti questions is yes. Then I smell utter b.s., er... nonsense. David in DC (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunatly most editors might not think that person is notable, not to be disrespectful, but as of OCT 2008 shes the 15th oldest person ever, it didnt say 14th oldest American ever, 14th oldest person ever in the world is more like it, take out the disputed and its even less than that. Longevitydude (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was the oldest living American, and she was the oldest person ever from the state of texas. Longevitydude (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why. All I know is that she was the oldest person in the United States at one time and the oldest from Texas. Therefore she is a notable person and she was documented.Cam46136 (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Cam46136[reply]

Keep Saying things like "She was old. She was the 14th oldest person in a large country, (etc)" is weak reasoning. She was already the oldest living American at one point, the oldest ever person from Texas, and the oldest ever 1878-born. No reason to delete. Brendan (talk, contribs) 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying things like "No reason to delete" about an article with this paucity of reliable sources or notable facts is weak reasoning. The reasons to keep may outweigh the reasons to delete. Or the reasons to delete may outweigh the reasons to keep. I've argued for the latter viewpoint. One can argue for the former viewpoint. But to deny the existence of any reason to delete is to reveal a dangerously blinkered point of view for the editor of a collaboratively written encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 01:19, 13 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. The consensus is that this should be kept, especially with reliable sources that have been added -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maude Farris-Luse[edit]

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

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete as nom 10-sentence article mostly about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN with some nonnotable bio material. Sources are unreliable GRG (2), primary-source SSDI, and one 26-sentence CBS article that does not support some of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members, with "citation needed" already in article) and is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Notability of one-source one-event bio should be demonstrated by a plurality of reliable secondary sources. JJB 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was, at one point, the oldest living person. jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 11:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- jc, your contributions to three AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in all three of your cases, the individual is in at least seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 16:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete The article's only reliable, secondary source is the 26-sentence CBS article, which is insufficient to establish notability. Inclusion in lists is fine. Neptune5000 (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep per reliable sources provided. Neptune5000 (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hardly anyone ever gets to 115 and she is the oldest from Michigan ever.DHanson317 (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: DHanson317, your contributions to six AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in your six cases, the individual is in an average of seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep Another case of a pre-emptive AFD on a longevity-related article by User:John J. Bulten. Next time you submit batches of articles for AFDs, please do you own research to try and locate articles. [17][18][19]
- I don't have the WP:BURDEN, especially when there are so many malformed WP articles to start with, and I am choosing to start with the simpler methods due to volume. Would you mind adding content to the article based on those links, so that I can consider what action they support (as I implied, merge can be considered if you do)? JJB 20:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Every argument JJBulten makes is incorrect. Notability is not dis-established by the lack of sources on the page, but by the lack of available sources. A quick check of Google news and other searches will find that reliable sources exist. While it may not be JJ' burden to add them, the Wiki-policy thing to do is to tag the article for "reference improve."

If an article is too short, it could be "stubbed".

Maud Farris-Luse was recognized as the world's oldest person and significant coverage exists for multiple events:

1. gaining the title 2. turning 115 3. dying

In addition, inclusion of a name in a list is NOT a reason to delete, but in fact a reason to keep. Just as Hank Aaron ranking high on a home run list and an RBI list, so being on multiple lists is a reason to keep, not a reason to delete.Ryoung122 00:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you tag the article or add the sources? Why don't you mention that the existence on multiple lists is due to the same editor group as the existence in a bio article, or that arguing from one to the other is circular, or that you were just accusing others of arguing circularly? JJB 03:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Being the undisputed oldest living person, for any length of time, is sufficient cause for notability. moontube —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

What an interesting position you take in your fourth edit ever! You might want to read what basic notability means. Incidentally, did anyone invite you to this page? JJB 04:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The number of previous edits I have made is immaterial to this discussion. Anyone who is declared the oldest person in the world receives coverage from media outlets all over the world. That satisfies the definition of notability, basic or otherwise. Incidentally, JJ, did anyone invite you to this page? moontube —Preceding undated —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC). [reply]

Keep For John J. Bulten every supercentenarian is nonnotable, even Jean Calment. He and his friends nominate all these articles about supercentenarians, because of his religious believes. He believes the only notable elderly people are those mentioned in the bible, who claim to be minimum 130+ years old. Now where is the proof these people were really that old? What stops me from "requesting" deletion of articles of every single elderly person from the bible? Who says the genesis is a reliable source? I dont! I do not believe the ages claimed in the bible. And that is my right to believe this, because we live in a free world. So in name of the free world. Let us stop this battle once and for all. I vote to keep all these articles, because if they are deleted, things may get out of control. We are having a battle here against believers of aged people in the bible/genesis and believers of aged people in the current world. Just my two cents. Petervermaelen 07:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At one time the oldest person in the world. A notable person. Amply documented.Cam46136 (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep As nominated, this was in exactly the same position as all the other bits of longevity hobbyist stubcruft. But I've fixed it.

WOP project members: This is what a wikipedia article looks like. It cites to the AP, which details not only the subject's place in the Guinness Book, but how her age was authenticated. Guinness used US Census records and one of her wedding certificates.

Not GRG web pages. Not a Yahoo group. Not Louis Epstein's "Oldest Human Beings" list hosted at worldrecords.org. (AP refers to "among other documents." Maybe GRG or OHB figure in there. If so, it's interesting that AP doesn't see fit to rely on them without naming Guinness, the U.S. Census and Luse's wedding certificate. Pretty darned smart policy.) David in DC (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amply cited. As the oldest ever person from Michigan, and the world's oldest American and person at some points, Farris-Luse is considered notable. Article reliably cited with only one unsourced statement, she passes WP:V. Brendan (talk, contribs) 01:26, 13 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. Tone 15:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tane Ikai[edit]

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

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. JJBulten inserted those words, which are against Wiki policy and which I now deleted. To claim that even otherwise-notable biographies should be deleted because they are on a list is AGAINST Wiki policy. I have amended JJ's incorrect assertions. Thus, his nomination is worthless, as he only quotes his own errors.Ryoung122 17:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom 13-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Only source is one 5-sentence Tulsa World article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members, with "citation needed" already in article since 12/2007) and is insufficient to demonstrate notability. JJB 05:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is one of the top 10 oldest people ever. jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 11:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- jc, your contributions to three AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in all three of your cases, the individual is in at least seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete The only source in the article is 5 sentences long, which is not substantial coverage. Inclusion in lists is fine. Neptune5000 (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is the oldest undisputed Japanese person ever. I don't see why her article can't be kept. DHanson317 (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: DHanson317, your contributions to six AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in your six cases, the individual is in an average of seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep She was Japan's oldest undisputed person ever. 116 is notable.Longevitydude (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep1) The Japan's oldest undisputed person ever. 2)The world's 7th oldest person ever. Japf (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For John J. Bulten every supercentenarian is nonnotable, even Jean Calment. He and his friends nominate all these articles about supercentenarians, because of his religious believes. He believes the only notable elderly people are those mentioned in the bible, who claim to be minimum 130+ years old. Now where is the proof these people were really that old? What stops me from "requesting" deletion of articles of every single elderly person from the bible? Who says the genesis is a reliable source? I dont! I do not believe the ages claimed in the bible. And that is my right to believe this, because we live in a free world. So in name of the free world. Let us stop this battle once and for all. I vote to keep all these articles, because if they are deleted, things may get out of control. We are having a battle here against believers of aged people in the bible/genesis and believers of aged people in the current world. Just my two cents. Petervermaelen 07:22, 9 December 2010

(UTC)

Keep. Japan's oldest verified person ever. EVER. And international coverage exists. When newspapers in St. Louis, MO choose to cover someone who died on the other side of the planet, that says that outside sources considered this person notable...long before Wikipedia even existed.Ryoung122 17:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources for your assertions please? JJB 18:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Japan’s verified oldest female. A notable person. Amply documented.Cam46136 (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per the reasons given above. Clearly notable topic. However, the article does need more references. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 12:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The difficulty of locating "some" sources is the more reason to keep articles like this, as non-experts won't be inclined to find the actual sources. Tane Ikai was in a lot of pre-internet sources, such as Facts on File, Japan Economic Newswire, etc. At this point, the best thing to do is to find internet sources. She's in the "Supercentenarians" book by the Max Planck Institute, for example.

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/drm/007/3-4.pdf

Ryoung122 05:56, 12 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yukichi Chuganji[edit]

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

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete as nom 5-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Only source is one 20-sentence BBC article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members) and is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Citation lack already tagged in article since 11/2007. JJB 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. You are not supposed to vote on your own nomination. Also, using weasel words like "nonnotable" to bias your phrasing is inappropriate. Notability is established by outside sources, not you...and further, notability is established by the existence of those sources, not whether someone has done the work (or not) to source them.Ryoung122 00:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was, at one point, the oldest living man, and may have also been the oldest living person (a title that is not often held by males). jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 11:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- jc, your contributions to three AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in all three of your cases, the individual is in at least seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete The only source in the article is 20 sentences long, which is not substantial coverage. Inclusion in lists is sufficient. Neptune5000 (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability is not dis-established or established by article length. You could write a long paper on your grandmother, that doesn't make her notable. Notability is established by the fact that outside reliable sources recognized him as the world's oldest man. I find it creepy that some people treat these humans as if they are just numbers.Ryoung122 00:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you kidding me, this man was the worlds oldest living man, hes Japan's oldest undisputed man ever, and one the the oldest undisputed men ever, you might as well nominate the worldsoldestpeople project for deletion if your gonna go after the most notable articles of the subject.Longevitydude (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the oldest living males on record and Japan's oldest undisputed male. Don't see why we can't keep it. DHanson317 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: DHanson317, your contributions to six AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in your six cases, the individual is in an average of seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. You fail to mention, JJ, that for all six articles, YOU nominated them for deletion, then COI-voted for your own nomination. Now you are "spamming" by using the same message on each discussion board, and attempting to intimidate others.

Your claims of "consensus" are false; you are citing your own proposals, which others have not accepted or bothered to respond to. In fact, you are damaging Wikipedia and if this poor behavior keeps up, I will have to start an ArbCom for YOU.Ryoung122 00:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recognized by multiple reliable sources as world's oldest man from January 3, 2002 until Sept 28 2003 (over a year). Also Japan's oldest undisputed man on record. Ryoung122 00:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you quote the policy you think I violated and/or link where I intimidated? Why don't you note that Judith and David and I have harmoniously built the current WP:WOP#Notability and sourcing section, nobody has objected to its text (I couldn't find in your comments a single objection to the text presented), and thus there is a WP:SILENT consensus? Why don't you use the ArbCom case already set up and custom-templated for exactly what you threaten to do? Hint: it's called Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Evidence#Evidence presented by .7Byour user name.7D; you could at least put up a placeholder for your evidence so we know what you're doing besides (apparently) getting the evidence deadline stalled for a month (diffs as needed). And of course, why don't you source the article? JJB 03:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

JJ, if you had any respect for an opponent, you don't "swing" when they are not in the ring. I already stated I was attempting to finish my second Master's degree this week. Common courtesy would dictate to "wait" to further these discussions later. I already erased some of your weasel-wording. I 100% object to the false interpretation that supercentenarian biographies should not exist, even if they meet standards of notability. Being in a list is NOT enough. You don't say that since Hank Aaron is in a list of home run hitters, RBI leaders, and runs scorers that, well, that's enough, who needs a bio? Nonsense.

Also: Itsmejudith already indicated she doesn't agree with a lot of what you're doing...another false charge.

Third...the 2007 discussion suggested that when notability cannot be independently demonstrated, there still could be a mini-bio in the "list of" pages. Where do you think that idea came from? Wikipedia.

Fourth...I realize that we don't need an article or even a mini-bio on EVERY supercentenarian. I suggest you put off further nominations for deletion and come to the table for some practical proposals. For example, I generally favor biographies if the person is:

1. Recognized by reliable outside sources as the World's Oldest Person or World's Oldest Man.

2. Claims to be the world's oldest person or oldest man and has international coverage.

3. Is 114+ (or alternately, is in the top-100 list all-time) and has substantial media coverage outside the local area. Thus, Ruth Bauder Clark,111, may not be notable as her obit only appeared in the Sarasota news, but someone like Beatrice Farve was featured in USA Today (coverage outside the local area), which argues that OUTSIDE sources selected this person to be notable enough.

4. Oldest persons of a nation should at least have a mini-bio on the "list of" page, if not notable enough for a standalone article.

5. War veterans may be notable for reasons that combine age with their tie to an historical event (i.e., Harry Patch).

Ryoung122 17:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This part I'm only gonna say once. Put the same number of colons before each paragraph in a multiparagraph comment. You already know how to do it because you do it for the first paragraph, and sometimes you have even done it correctly for all paragraphs. You have refused my polite subtle hints on this topic, and it is disruptive.

Now I don't recall seeing you say it was a master's, but I made no conscious attempt to stomp on your schedule. If you knew a master's deadline was coming up, it was a bad idea to break policies left and right (and completely ignore a Mediation Cabal you agreed to) to the degree that another editor (Judith) announced the intent to file at ArbCom, which I then seconded and opened. Since it appears you got the evidence deadline put off for a month, I switched instead to WP:WOP improvement and AFDs on obvious GNG failures (which every keeper in 9 articles has failed to comment on, except for Siamese in two cases out of about thirty). After five keep votes on this article, nobody has responded to the point that there is only one reliable source and that creates zero presumption of notability (i.e., the deletion arguments are valid, the keep arguments are patently not, and the better argument should carry the day).

I appreciate your two interactive changes to WP:WOP; they were based on your misunderstanding the point, which I'm happy to say I have now clarified. Apropos to these AFDs, you now have people saying that I believe Calment should be deleted (I don't), which seemed an out-of-the-blue charge until I discovered your misunderstanding (compare the ambiguous draft with the clarified draft). I don't believe and never said "supercentenarian biographies should not exist, even if they meet standards of notability", although I can understand your passion leading you to misread the edit that way. This type of misunderstanding has been shown to you to be typical of your interpretative methods, and yet you do not take safeguards to protect against it, but instead (circumstantial evidence indicates) you tell a large group of others how bad the third party is in your misunderstood picture. I will note this separately in comments to Peter.

The rest of your comments are appropriate for WT:WOP, to which I shall copy them. I should note, however, that any arguments by keepers for inherent notability do not change the consensus established at WP:WOP that GNG failure trumps inherent notability: I say this is consensus because not a single editor, including you, has attempted to pass off an alternate consensus at WP:WOP or talk, or even start a discussion there, to the effect that some inherent notability would save this article. I started the discussion, and I am continuing it by bringing your comments there. (I don't know why you didn't save your precious time by commenting there in the first place, as I asked in the nom.) However, aside from my transferring your text, every editor at that page has supported (actively or passively) the general guideline that this page (Chuganji) be deleted. That guideline, which you let stand during your edits to it linked above, is currently: "Articles on centenarians and supercentenarians are biographies and the notability guidelines for biographies apply. Independent coverage in a plurality of reliable sources is required." The case should be closed. JJB 18:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. The 5th oldest man ever.Japf (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For John J. Bulten every supercentenarian is nonnotable, even Jean Calment. He and his friends nominate all these articles about supercentenarians, because of his religious believes. He believes the only notable elderly people are those mentioned in the bible, who claim to be minimum 130+ years old. Now where is the proof these people were really that old? What stops me from "requesting" deletion of articles of every single elderly person from the bible? Who says the genesis is a reliable source? I dont! I do not believe the ages claimed in the bible. And that is my right to believe this, because we live in a free world. So in name of the free world. Let us stop this battle once and for all. I vote to keep all these articles, because if they are deleted, things may get out of control. We are having a battle here against believers of aged people in the bible/genesis and believers of aged people in the current world. Just my two cents. Petervermaelen 07:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was Japan’s oldest man. A notable person. Amply documented.Cam46136 (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment to the first and last of these nine AFDs, applicable to all and intended to be read by all closers. I am too angry at WP's systemic failure, as shown in these AFDs, for me to provide the full analysis necessary. The short form is that there is significant evidence of canvassing, and that I will need to present it to a different forum than to the AFD closer(s). The majority of these AFDs have had not a single keep comment provide a reliable source, and in the remainder there has been no evidence that a new source or two confers notability (except for David in DC's judgment in one case). Those who have commented at the WikiProject have all agreed with the formulation of GNG that makes all of these articles still deletes, or potential merges in a couple cases. Any appearance of consensus, if it still remains after the evidence of canvassing, SPAs, arguments to avoid, and distractions ad nauseam is accounted for, is the result of an endemic, years-long infiltration of walled-garden builders into WP, as documented (in part) at the open ArbCom case that discusses this very behavior. I have manifold reasons for my conviction that these are neither consensus keeps nor nonconsensus keeps but in fact GNG failures that should be deleted or merged and will be; one reason that comes to mind is that my last salvo of 8 AFDs with exactly the same GNG failures were all deleted, in accord with the many many AFDs linked in the nom. However, I rest secure in my knowledge that WP does the right thing in the long run, even if any closer is not able to appreciate all the facts I have on hand to bear on these cases. JJB 06:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment/Keep JJB, your comment "I am too angry..." proves you may need to take some time off. You are only making yourself, and not us, miserable. Keep because in addition to being the oldest ever undisputed Japanese male, Chuganji was also the world's oldest person at one time should Hongo's case be discounted. AfDing him is ILLOGICAL. Brendan (talk, contribs) 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As nominated, this article was well within the policy for designating it an article for deletion. I've rescued it. It's been a mess, according to it's tag, for more than four years. It's still full of stuff that's got no source, and a bit of a WP:COATRACK for disputes about other peoples' actual ages. But, as now edited, it may just barely scrape the high jump bar of sufficient sources to keep. But if so, the bar is wobbling on its supporting brackets from the scrape. A closer who found my edits insufficient, and that the bar did not survive the scrape --- but rather wobbled and then fell into the landing pit --- would hear no argument from me. It's a damn close call. One of the few. Most of the recent nominations of hobbyist longevity stubcruft have been un-rescuable and clearly neede deletion. The castigation and approbation being heaped on JJB for this is wholly unwonted. David in DC (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oldest Japanese man ever. Deserves recoginition and article. Even if he was 2nd, 3rd, whatever. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:35, 12 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 22:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Huckaby[edit]

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

Article may have been deleted by PROD, CSD, or AfD in the past because the fist line is a maintenance tag from January 2010; general notability jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article has tones of WP:ADVERT and sourcing points more to the product than the author. Wikiproject video games reliable sources search turns 0 hits. --Teancum (talk) 18:00, 6 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. Tone 15:26, 12 December 2010 (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 and no other arguments for delete. Mandsford 01:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inversion (discrete mathematics)[edit]

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

Non-notable term unlikely to grow beyond a dictionary definition. Pnm (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well defined concept in a standard textbook on the subject, which is to say that the term has received significant coverage in reliable sources intellectually independent of it. Ray^Talk 03:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. I heard of this concept, referred to by this word, so many times in so many different talks at the MIT combinatorics seminar, and in some at the MIT applied math seminar, and in some at the University of Minnesota's combinatorics seminar, to think of it as anything but a universally standard term. Why is non-notability asserted? Or that it's unlikely to grow beyond a definition? One should check Google Scholar before saying something like that. (The combinatorics seminar at MIT actually meets twice a week---or did when I was there. That means attending it moderately regularly for three years, as I did, is a fair number of hours....) Michael Hardy (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be useful in measuring the efficacy of various sorting techniques, and perhaps in selecting which one to use in an application. However, the article needs to be expanded beyond just a definition. For example, showing which sorting algorithms run fastest when the input is expected to have an inversion number less than, say, 1% of its maximum possible value. Or how much a single pass of some algorithm (e.g. bubble sort) reduces the inversion number. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is surely notable, and there is plenty of material that could be added to this article. I have added the combinatorics stub template, which gets it listed as a math article as well as a computer science article. Hopefully someone will take it upon themselves to add some material. Jim.belk (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar finds over 100 papers that have this subject in their title. No doubt there are many others about inversions but with other choices of title words. Clearly a well-established and significant concept in combinatorics. The current article is little more than a dicdef but (unlike with some less-notable subjects) there's no reason to expect it to remain in that state forever. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Necesseary article, going to be expanded. The name Inversion of a permutation would be better, I think. Lipedia (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Inversion of a permutation" sounds as if you apply a function to a permuation and the value you get is its "inversion". I think "Inversion in a permutation" might be better. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I nominated the article in good faith but clearly I was incorrect. (Searching for a word like inversion is difficult.) I think the move from Inversion (computer science) to Inversion (discrete mathematics) since nomination is an improvement, but like last two names proposed more. Nevertheless, I'm glad to see the drastic improvement in the article. --Pnm (talk) 17:21, 6 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. Tikiwont (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondence of Fentress girls to Sailor Scouts[edit]

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

Original research, not much context, unreferenced. Acroterion _(talk) 02:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, pure original research. LadyofShalott 02:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure original research. Furthermore, we don't even have an article about Fentress for context. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Tagged for speedy deletion as an obvious hoax. Possible WP:BLP violation as well —Farix (t | c) 05:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was not so obviously a hoax to me, but your comment prompted me to check Amazon.com for Fentress, and it lists no novels of that title. So you may be correct. LadyofShalott 06:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence anywhere of the existence of a novel entitle "Fentress", so it is almost certainly a hoax, and if it isn't then it is totally non-notable. No sources are cited in the article, and as far as I can determine none exist anywhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G3 as a Hoax It looks like nothing can be found on this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 5 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. Tone 15:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drag City (record label)[edit]

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

Nearly a year and the article still isn't sourced. I gave a good faith effort to find sources but could not. Uberciter (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sources exist: Spin magazine, Boston Phoenix, The Stranger, Chicago Reader. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of coverage found including the SPIN feature, Chicago Tribune articles, and several articles in Billboard, and it's a very important label, so we really don't want to delete this.--Michig (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notable record label; sources exist. I agree that we need to find a way to take a harder line against articles that still remain unreferenced after an extended period of improvement tagging, but this particular topic was never really a deletion candidate in the first place and some references have now been added. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Hundreds of great recordings, so far. Home to Joanna Newsom, Will Oldham and many more... Can we not just block the plank who nominated this for deletion? Night. Snoop God (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known label with many famous artists. This is a very pointy AFD. Leithp 07:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rewrite if necessary, but Drag City is an important, notable label that definitely deserves a Wikipedia entry. Mark Lungo (talk) 18:42, 11 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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Emadi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR which says that the subject should "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Article seems to be well-referenced, but many of these references are articles he wrote rather than sources about him (like Jaras reformist website, talashonline, iran-chabar, etc), some of them are not independent of the subject (like: shamlou.com, poets.ir), some seems to be reliable but just covered him very briefly (like Radio Farda, El Pais), and many of them are not reliable at all (like: Vazna, 8aaad.com, etc). 2 reviews from IBNA are in fact news on his upcoming book. Even in Persian I couldn't find any review on his works. Farhikht (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article does not fail any Wikipedia policy. The subject recently won a Spanish poetry prize; the news also appears in ILNA, Gooya and many other important Iranian news agency beside the Spanish medias. Just a simple search in Persian or Latin could show many other references which are not listed. It seems the user Farhikht, just considers the sources he/she like as a reliable source. Vazna or 8aaad are completely reliable within the filed of Persian modern literature for their reputation, influence and resistance in the situation of censorship in Iran.--Transcelan (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. --Farhikht (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Farhikht (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Mohsen Emadi was awarded a prize and published two news books since the last nomination for deletion; one of them is a work with well known writers. In addition, he gained much more reference in a meantime. I see absolutely no reason why the article should be deleted. --Newpoesia (talk) 22:57, 3 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) 01:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note : Anyone who is interested could Google in Persian("محسن عمادی") or in English("Mohsen Emadi") or in Spanish ("Mohsen Emadí"). I am not familiar with other idioms, Russian or Japanese for example. --Transcelan (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : It looks like to me that the user Farhikht is interested in removing the entry, no matter under which rule and what the content of the entry is. As the creator of the page, I don't see any violation by the entry or its content. Behnam (talk) 18:04, 11 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 22:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Hengel[edit]

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

Delete. The unfortunate boy had five hours of media attention and then killed himself. A classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was planning to nominate this article myself using the WP:SINGLEEVENT rationale. Royal broil 04:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Royal, delete this. TiMike (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Would like see if we could have a page of in-school violent incidents though. Things like this may not be as large as Columbine High School massacre but they can used later on. The 15 minutes of fame for this person could, in the future, be written about or used as an example so would be nice to see a place to mention it. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you want the content of this and other articles retrieved to build an article on school violence and I'll put it in your userspace. Royal broil 23:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a sad, unfortunate truth that teenagers commit suicide every day in this country. This one just happened to do it in a way that garnered him some attention. At the young age of 15, he made a poor choice and should not be remembered for that error that ultimately resulted in 15 minutes of fame. Twinsdude (talk • contribs) 12:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.97.11 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC) — 75.72.97.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I agree with Wolfstorm000 about having an article about in-school violence and including this within the article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SINGLEEVENT. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:50, 6 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 G3 by User:Toddst1. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 18:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Olympic III[edit]

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

None of the sources cited are reliable. I seriously doubt think this is actually happening, but according to the article we will know by the end of the week. Surely there would be a massive flurry of press activity if they were going to start building a replica of the Titanic in the next few days? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a pure imagination. You should know in Argentina, that there are shipyard with a lot of billions of money. If you have some week of three, you will see on a website of a shipyard about the Replica Olympic. Only me, and two other people have the reliable source. Maybe this may give a more impression of the Olympic, that has the requirements of SOLAS today. Thanks, Peekarica (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete − Per nom. This is just pure speculation, and the expression of someone's over-active imagination. The ~~only~~ majority of sources are to the creator's own webite! — Fly by Night (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is only TWO urls of my website, rest of it isn't mine. I will be laughing so hard what you will see in Argentina in the end of 2011. Then we see who is right and who has spoken the truth about the return of an Old Reliable. Peekarica (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there are only three URL's in total. I've changed it to majority instead of all. I hope that deals with your concerns. — Fly by Night (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and delete Replica Titanic too... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I rather think it is improbable to the point of impossibility that the Royal Mail would use this ship to ship Royal Mail, hence "RMS" is extremely unlikely. Mention anything notable at Olympic class ocean liner 65.94.47.218 (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all these reconstructions of Olympic-class liners should be mentioned in a section at Olympic class ocean liner under "revivals", if they have several RS sources 65.94.47.218 (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there should not be an article on a ship until the keel has been laid at minimum. Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you, Mjroots. When the keel is laid at minimum, I will come back to make this article again. But the talks about Olympic is starting next week, and then we know if the Olympic is actually coming or not. What is happening next week is the blueprints of Olympic, the updated design of the ship and interior, will be shown to the company which needs a large ship. Someone named Manuel will present the project to the company. If the keel of Olympic will begin, the shipyard (Still not known) will have webcams to view it live. I really believe Olympic makes a chance to be rebuild, since the shipyards in Argentina swimming in the money. Peekarica (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source is www.peekarica.com -- if this is being kept secret from the world's press, then it isn't ready for a Wikipedia article. Mandsford 16:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are three articles on unlikely re-buildings of Olympic-class ocean liners. We should wait at least until more references referring to the planning and construction of the Olympic III can be provided. Not to mention that the Cunard Line has not even announced a rebuilding of the Olympic and it is unlikely that they would even operate it, not to mention it is unlikely that an Argentine shipyard would build an Olympic III. This is quite possibly a hoax. 1Matt20 (talk) 16:33, 5 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. delete, just like the similar ones below DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanovic–Jankovic rivalry[edit]

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most insignificant rivalry I've seen of the ones nominated. They faced each other only 9 times, never met in the final of any tournament, and faced off in only one grand slam (semifinals of the '08 French Open). Mandsford 01:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More unnotable by the season, unless they turn their career's around. KnowIG (talk) 13:01, 8 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evert–Navratilova rivalry[edit]

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

It is just a repository of results. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overhead smash keep. This was a major rivalry that lasted for many years, arguably the greatest in women's tennis. It was so notable, it got its own ESPN documentary and at least one book. The Los Angeles Times called it "probably the most socially significant sports rivalry of all time. Certainly it was among the purest, the most intimate and longest-running."[20] Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suppose that a word of explanation needs to be added for the benefit of anyone who doesn't understand the significance of the rivalry. Here goes. In the game of tennis, there are four major tournaments, Wimbledon, and the U.S., French and Australian Opens. These are called "Grand Slam" tournaments. Evert and Navratilova met in many of the finals (i.e. the championship games) of these events and were, at the time, two of the greatest women players in the world. The nomination seems to be based on the concept that it needs to be explained, something that could have been fixed without a debate. Mandsford 15:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Without question one of the biggest rivalries in tennis – described by both The Boston Globe and Sky as "the mother of all rivalries", [21], [22]. Suggest nominator withdraw this one. _wjemather ^bigissue 19:46, 6 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 22:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graf–Navratilova rivalry[edit]

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, repository...who says this match up is any more notable then any other tennis match up. CTJF83 chat 18:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unsourced articles get tags, not deletion notices. It would be exceedingly easy to source the chart. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not a repository of "links, images, or data files." These women are probably the two greatest of all time. If someone doesn't like the word "rivalry" in an article title, then change the title. 75.44.28.90 (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the problem...there is no indication these matchups are notable. CTJF83 chat 03:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - These women played each other 18 times (9 of which were in Grand Slam tournaments and 6 of which were in Grand Slam finals), are former top ranked players, and are members of the International Tennis Hall of Fame. 17 of their matches happened when both were ranked in the top 10 or seeded in the top 10. 12 of their matches happened when both were ranked in the top 2 or seeded in the top 2. 12 of their matches were tournament finals. 75.44.28.90 (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you provide reliable sources that show why these 2 matchups are notable, not just your examples as to why you think they are notable CTJF83 chat 04:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note the IP here is indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer User:Tennis expert who no longer has the privilege of editing here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Six consecutive meetings in Grand Slam finals. Not as famous as Graf-Sabatini or Evert-Navratilova, but a notable rivalry in the 1980s [23] Mandsford 01:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure, yes they played regually but surely more of it was the intrigue between Martina who was at the end of her singles career and Steffi who was tipped as the next big thing rather than a rivalry such as in other players. As a rivarly just means two players or teams playing each other. Not sure, some one convince me either way here of whether this is a notable rivarly or not KnowIG (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article definitely needs some work but I think it meets notability standards, The Independent lists it in one of its articles [24]. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 19:10, 8 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 22:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courier–Sampras rivalry[edit]

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing to assert that this rivalry was particularly notable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to being a rivalry and from memory it was never a rivalry in the press. KnowIG (talk) 11:02, 11 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clijsters–Henin rivalry[edit]

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

It is just a repository of results. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It needs some work but several newspapers and websites have noted and specifically called it a rivalry including The Independent BBC News Miami Herald The Guardian The Times ESPN CNN. I could go on. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 19:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Work is being done to make it a proper article KnowIG (talk) 22:33, 9 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graf–Sabatini rivalry[edit]

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

It is just an indiscriminate repository of results. It is indiscriminate, because article says not why these 20 results were selected out of their 40 matches. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable they have met 40 times needs big amount of work which I shall look at later. KnowIG (talk) 12:58, 8 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Szu Hui-fang[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Ath#College_athletes, no significant coverage for this university level athlete beyond reprinting of statistics. Gigs (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Gigs (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:48, 23 November 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) 00:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is some evidence of notability from reliable sources [25]. - Aeonx (talk) 14:59, 1 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) 01:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 19:02, 7 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kou Nai-han[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Ath#College_athletes, no significant coverage for this university level athlete beyond reprinting of statistics and personal blog posts. Gigs (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject has played for her national team, as confirmed by the Fédération Internationale de Volleyball. What evidence is there that she is only a "university level athlete"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Current team: "Taipei Physical Education College". Gigs (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 23 November 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) 00:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to have gained national media attention [26][27] as an individual sports-person and plays at a professional national level, as demonstrated by participation in Asian Games [28]. (Note: 顧乃涵 also roughly translates to Gu Naihan). - Aeonx (talk) 12:20, 1 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) 01:08, 5 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 22:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lendl–McEnroe rivalry[edit]

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

It is just a repository of results. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. As it stands, the article is as described, just a meaningless list of match results. However there is evidence that such a rivalry exists and is notable [29] so it may be possible to build a proper article. _wjemather^bigissue 18:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep. Listed by both The Boston Globe and Sky (among others) as one of the greatest rivalries in tennis. [30], [31]. Article just needs writing. _wjemather ^bigissue 19:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is what I would call a rivalry article obivously need writing KnowIG (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs expansion obviously but it is noted by news organisations including, CNN New York Times Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 19:24, 8 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 redirect to Newton Mearns#Education. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mearns Primary School[edit]

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia's "Notability" guidelines for schools. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education. I very strongly disagree with that guideline, but it is still in place, and must be adhered to. Shirt58 (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newton Mearns#Education, standard practice. tedder (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Normally, I'd put this down as a straightforward merge/redirect, but this primary school seems to be getting more attention than your average one. A search on GNews for "Mearns Primary" shows that this school got quite a bit of attention a few years ago over a lottery system for admissions, and further attention (although less of a notability claim) over some silly parents who wanted to land a helicopter on the playing field for a prom. Combining this with the historic building it use to occupy and it being one of the largest primary school in Scotland, there may be a case for an exception. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:13, 28 November 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) 01:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newton Mearns#Education per precedent. Cunard (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no district to merge into. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:29, 13 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 22:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meagan McKinney[edit]

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

Unsourced biography for an author of romance novels. Unlike authors of mainstream books, it is exceptional for authors of romance novels to receive any significant media attention. The books are typically potboilers of little literary merit and are usually fomulaic and quickly written, leading in some cases to huge numbers of published books without any mainstream media coverage at all. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What did you say? Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be sufficient news coverage of her, especially in connection with her lucrative illegal activities, as well as peer recognition for her writing from a notable trade group. [32] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:14, 28 November 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) 00:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author is more than you usual romance-novel hack, if my library's shelves are any indication. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:31, 5 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 22:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Qaderi[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, can't find any secondary sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 1 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) 00:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ENT.Farhikht (talk) 16:18, 10 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Qafzezi[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, can't find any secondary sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:BIO. Even LexisNexis has nothing on this chap. Ironholds (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is not unsourced, as it has references to a newspaper and an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth pointing out, however, that an encyclopaedia does not constitute a secondary source. I appreciate your point, though :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but even if unsuitable for sourcing notability, policy explains how "Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others." Of course, and though I have no idea how reliable the Albanian Enciklopedi e Kinematografise Shqiptare might be, a tertiary source "may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion". In the Leon Qafzezi article, it seems to be used for verification, not for detailed discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is an important figure in Albanian cinema, journalism, and an important writer. All it needs is a cleanup.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide any sources allowing him to pass the relevant guidelines? Ironholds (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure wish we had an Albanian online with access to Albanian libraries and hardcopy sources. The number of book results brought up are suggestive that Gaius Claudius Nero's opinion may have merit.[33] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seven of the ten on the first page are by a vanity press company and follow the same format - and I note the first of those gives Wikipedia as a source. Definitely unreliable. The others may be, but I can't preview them, so I have no way of seeing what they're about, the coverage they give, so on. Ironholds (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I cannot access them either, nor do I read Albanian. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Albanian books are published by one of the most respectable Albanian printing presses (Toena). I do not have access to them either, but then again, how many Albanian books can one have access to online? (I understand Albanian by the way.)--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:58, 8 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) 00:55, 5 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 22:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rotorstorm[edit]

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

Removed a copyvio from this, but there doesn't appear to be anything notable about this fictional character. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' a non notable character. Dwanyewest (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You might want to read WP:ITSNOTABLE. Mathewignash (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article has one third party citation, and it could probably get more. Mathewignash (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't quite meet my bar for notability (which is admittedly lower than most people's), but I think it can be improved. ----Divebomb is not British 17:01, 3 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) 00:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- extremely minor Transformer who apparently appeared in, at most, three issues of a comic. Wikipedia is not a directory of every fictional character ever to exist, and this one is about as far from suitable for an article as you can get. The sources -fansites- barely suffice to verify his existence (their breathless plot summary only mentions him in passing), and do nothing whatsoever to demonstrate lasting relevance in the only Universe that matters, the real one. Reyk _YO! 08:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wreckers (Transformers) and make a list of IDW universe Wreckers. NotARealWord (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Wreckers (Transformers) due to a lack of reliable third-party sources, which are necessary to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:20, 10 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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Garry[edit]

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

Little notability asserted, "sources" are Transformers fansites, wikis, blogs and Twitter. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree poor fansite material used as reliable sources to assert notability deleteDwanyewest (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Battlestars: Return of Convoy, he's a character from that series in Japan. Mathewignash (talk) 23:11, 2 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) 00:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- more Transformers cruft "sourced" to fansites and wikis. No thanks. Reyk _YO! 08:40, 5 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 Withdrawn. Seems notable enough to me now. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Ammons[edit]

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

A bit unclear how he qualifies per WP:PROF because the journal he founded is rather obscure. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, somewhat weakish, but still. I added a ref to an obit which says that he was a fellow of American Association for the Advancement of Science - possibly enough to pass WP:PROF#C3. Also, he invented something called the "Ammons Quick Test", which seems to be some sort of a quick intelligence test that is or was widely used in psychology - at least GoogleBooks gives 419 hits for it[34]. Still, I would have preferred to see more explicit evidence of biographical coverage for a case like this. Nsk92 (talk) 06:33, 5 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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Chapman[edit]

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

Prod declined. I have found no reliable sources to verify this BLP. Mattg82 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 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) 00:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing about her I can find on Google is this article. --Expo776 (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, and see [35] where it was decided to drop a criteria under which she might have scraped through. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 5 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 22:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowism[edit]

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

delete no significant third party sources found for this recent art movement Melaen (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This supposed art movement began on Nov. 15, 2010 and there is one blog, associated with the two self-described "yellowist" artists, offered as a reference. Delete as non-notable and unsourced. freshacconci talktalk 03:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. As well, since the link is to a blog about the movement (and a blogspot blog no less), it seems like it's mainly promotional for said blog. d m z 03:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete First: "Interpreting Yellowism as art ... deprives Yellowism of its only purpose." so yellowism is not an art movement "It derived from the visual arts and despite this fact, is not classified as art, what is in accordance with its essence." second: the lack of references is because yellowism is "fresh" and new phenomenon. third: i see yellowism as an important point of reference for postmodern culture. so if the article will be deleted it will come back sooner or later. --Sylwiaartiomowa (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: if the article will be deleted it will come back sooner or later. When it has reliable sources attesting to its notability, that will be fine. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Made-up non-notable thing, supported by nothing more than a blogspot blog. "Yellowism is not art, Yellowism is not a Wikipedia article". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Natalia Vodianova indeed. Interesting. I wonder if she knows about it. Otherwise, made up. Mind you, every idea is made up at some time and only achieved notability later. Somehow, I can't see closed yellow rooms catching on, not even in the circles that buy sheep from Damien Whatsisname or photographs of where someone threw a stone off a cliff (that's not made up, that was real). Peridon (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't delete~~ It is good that you can not see pieces of yellowism and yellowistic chamber as a interesting thing for circles that buy works of Damien Hirst. Why ? Because pieces of yellowism are not works of art. They buy art, so why they should like something that is not art.So,you are right--Sylwiaartiomowa (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NOT and WP:MADEUP. Semantic games are tiresome. If there are no reliable sources, this article does not belong here. freshacconci talktalk 18:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can only !vote once. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unsourced neologism. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, unsourced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously not notable, only reliable results are for different uses of the term. Roscelese (talk) 01:16, 12 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom[edit]

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

Just some murder. The article does not explain why it's notable. There seems to be a concerted effort by some editors to remove any mention of why this case may be notable from the article. Expo776 (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"ah dear" – my way or the highway, is it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:00, 5 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vachanam[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mainstream Malayalam film from a notable director and starring major actors. As with the case of pre-internet era, online coverage is thin. But Gbook search shows three results for the film and contemporary news stories about the director mention this film among his notable ones. One book lists it among the "best of lenin rajendran". There should be a ton of offline coverage - both English and Malayalam - for this film when it was released.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasonable arguments by User:Sodabottle. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted on 22:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC) as article only has IMDB as a source, but above comments show a possibility of notability. d m z 22:40, 5 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.