< 13 February	15 February >

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NAPMA[edit]

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

This article needs deletion it has no reliable third person sources or notability. Fails criteria WP:NOTE, WP:SOURCE Dwanyewest (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC) *Note: Added missing AFD heading. --Canley (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet another malformed AfD that is apparently not even listed at the AfD page. Some editors seem to be aggressively misinterpreting the notion "AfD is not for article improvement" and declining to do even a simple web search to verify notability. I assume the goal is to wear down those who do check these things on Google--a deletion-war of attrition--accompanied by copious complaints that WP:SOFIXIT only applies to the "other guy". A cursory search on Google turns up article in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/85866), the Poughkeepsie Journal ([1]), and Business News ([2], [3]), The Record ([4]), quoting NAPMA on martial arts business and national statistics, and in the Charleston Gazette highlighting a local instructor who was featured on NAPMA's magazine's cover ([5]); gubernatorial and similar proclamations in Arkansas ([6]), Florida ([7]), Alaska ([8]), and New Mexico ([9]), and a related story in The Herald News of Joliet, IL ([10]); a court case ([11]); press releases by major companies like Coca-Cola ([12]); and in general enough to establish notability. Wikipedia needs to find a way to enforce that AfD nominators do at least a cursory check before nominating an article rather than attempting to force others to do this task for them by the expedient of the AfD. JJL (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to be some random guy just nominating for the sake of deletion but there are too wikipedia articles martial arts related articles or non martial art articles that don't use reliable third person sources to demonstrate noteworthiness. Such as Amateur Martial Association,World Shorinji Kempo Organization,PERSILAT,Commonwealth Taekwondo Union. I was gonna say if it was so notable then fix it since there is more than sufficient sources can be used to prove its noteworthy it should be added to the main article. Surely the previous poster can agree if someone is gonna create an article that it should provide sources that aren't solely primary and are independent of the subject this article IMO was not.

Dwanyewest (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJL. Needs to be rescued and the sources added. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per User_talk:Dwanyewest#Massive_number_of_PRODs_and_AFDs jmcw (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Book search shows a martial arts magazine called Black Belt (magazine) covers them in various articles they have. This includes a lifetime achievement award NAPMA gave someone, and the NAPMA 2001 World Conference, which it says "attracted some 1400 martial arts instructors from around the globe". The Google news search results show many promising results also, but the magazine coverage and what others have found already is enough. Remember, always Google search BEFORE you nominate. Dream Focus 20:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be fixed. Consensus was not reached. Vampyrecat (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to start rewriting the article and put secondary sources what's stopping anyone doing it now. If someone is gonna create an article they should at least have the decency to put reliable sources the onus is on an editor to prove what they are writing is trueWP:PROVEIT. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but that has been proven by the sources given above--why do you keep quoting WP:PROVEIT? Are you not yet convinced? JJL (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone one keeps going on it can be saved but have done to improve it by ACTUALLY ADDING THE SAID SOURCES which I have at least done. I haven't added some sources because some such [13] require some form of trial or subscription which I don't believe wikipedia allows.WP:Access to sources Dwanyewest (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? Your link says exactly the opposite of what you believe: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." As for getting other people to add sources--please try not to be controlling. Thanks for improving the NAPMA article though--it's definitely in better shape now. JJL (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

right. Wikipedia is not limited to what is free on the web. Libraries exist, and it is helpful to use them. Most paid sources found on the web can be made available for free via even a good public library, let alone a university library, though it may take a while. Fortunately, there is no deadline for improving an article. Of course the person who writes the article has the first responsibility to do this, but if not, according to WP:BEFORE, the nominator has the responsibility to at least see if such sources exist. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 19 February 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 and improve article. Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ranish Partition Manager[edit]

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

NN free software partitioner. No refs to be found Ipatrol (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are refs to be found if you looked. A link you posted has 14 references [14]. Lumenos (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may find more "sources" for it but I don't think my time is best utilized this way. Lumenos (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lumenos, if you are not interested in writing encyclopedia entries, then do not write for Wikipedia. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I labeled the article as a stub. As far as I understand the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, the question of deletion applies to the name of the article only. I've now posted a list of sources demonstrating that the software meets WP:GNG. If you have complaints about the content, I think they would be more appropriate on the article's talk page. Lumenos (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question of notability pertains to the subject of the article.

If it meets the general notability guideline, then re-write the article. How about this:

Ranish Partition Manager is a free software program for managing partitions on a hard drive. It is generally recommended by some computer professionals as a good alternative to commercial partition managers such as ..., as well as other free partition managers including ..., because of its easier-to-use, menu-driven command line interface, ability to simulate all changes to the disk to verify the likely success of the changes, and correct handling of many partition formats.%INSERT <ref> TAGS HERE% Ranish Partition Manager has been recommended for mostly advanced users. Unlike some other partition managers, it allows the user to edit the extended boot records, clone entire partitions, and view the cylinder-head-sector geometry of up to 32 partitions on a drive.%INSERT MORE <ref> TAGS HERE%

Ranish Partition Manager is included with SystemRescueCD.

I suggest citing the URLs that I have found as well as a book that you found in the Google Books search, Erste Hilfe für den PC: Lösen Sie jedes Problem selbst, at a minimum. See ((cite web)) and ((cite book)).

If you want, you can userify the article by editing it at User:Lumenos/Ranish Partition Manager until it is ready to be moved to article space. You can e-mail me when you are ready to do this. « D. Trebbien (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting D. Trebbien from above, "The question of notability pertains to the subject of the article." We have already established that the subject is notable. Your comments pertain to the content, not the subject. You are trying to use the threat of deletion to compel me to conform the article to your interpretation of the editing policy. A more legitimate way to do this would be to use the ((verify)) tag. Quoting the deletion policy, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Lumenos (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the article in its current state is that it is mostly original research; you have written your personal opinion of the software's features and merits. Original research is not good for an encyclopedia article and it needs to be removed. However, removing all of the original research from the article would basically trim it to an empty article that does not assert the significance of the subject. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a link to 14 books that mention Ranish PM. You are exaggerating to say the article would be nothing if it were trimmed down to only "sourced" information. You could justify deleting some of the article based on the policies you mentioned, but it would not justify deleting the entire article. Lumenos (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any policy explaining who carries the burden of proving that the subject of the article is notable or not. You seem to think that is my job, but one policy states that if there is no "rough consensus", the article should not be deleted. Anyway, I put a lot more references in the article since the last post of anyone else. It will be a damn shame if some ignorant admin, decides to kill it. You may consider it merely my opinion, because you don't know anything about partition tables, but Ranish Partition Manager (run from SystemRescueCD) is one of the fastest ways of creating bit-identical clones (backups) for system partitions, and perhaps the most intuitive and efficient partition editor for partition tables that are compatible with Windows XP... and it is freeware. Lumenos (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not assert notability. WP:GNG - user:Addionne

The deletion policy does not state that articles should be deleted because they don't "assert notability", it says they should be deleted if they do not meet the notability requirements. That means you would actually have to do more than glance at the article and see if it has any references. Here are 14 references that are probably published by third-parties. [15] Lumenos (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I had to search a bit to find some third-party reviews, but I think that from what I have seen so far, the subject is notable enough for there to be an article about it: [16], [17], [18], [19], and [20]. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To explain my reasoning further, I am generally of the mindset that if a subject has some independent, substantive writings about it, then there can be an article about it. After all, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is space for obscure topics. However—the article must be well-written and factually-correct, follow the manual of style, and it must read like an encyclopedia article. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that content is more valuable than style, but the question here is notability. Lumenos (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the question is notability. No one's perceived value of content should be an argument in a deletion discussion because all editors have a different world view which makes content on particular topics more valuable to them than to others. Taking things to extreme, Wikipedia is not censored, and if a topic is demonstrably notable then it can be included (with a few exceptions that are listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion). « D. Trebbien (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is demonstrably "notable", according to the real definition of the word, but you have to know or learn things about partition tables and partition editors to be able to see that. As far as Wikipedia's policy that attempts to use third-party publishers to judge notability for us, we have 14 books [21]. I have been a very bad editor and spent more time explaining the reasons Ranish Partition Manager is a valuable partitioner, based on my own experience with it, but at least I cited 10 sources in the process (which is many more refs than a great number of software articles that these wiki editors have no interest in criticizing, for whatever reason). Lumenos (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many references by third party publications.[22] It is also notable that the software is free and yet has many features not found in similar software. Lumenos (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Dtrebbien above. Seems to have ample notability. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:06, 21 February 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) 06:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small plot[edit]

No indication of notability. Would be a speedy, but doesn't apply to places. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I decliend an A7 speedy. I prodded, removed by articel creator. see the history. If sources that demonstrate notability are produced, will reconsider. DES ^(talk) 01:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm right on the border of an A1 No Context speedy, but it identifies the subject as a place. As for what is said about that place? It's unclear. There may be an issue with English, as well, which bears examination. But it's nearly impossible to determine what we're talking about, here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment with a little searching the subject seems reasonably clear. If somehow this were judged notable (perhaps sources found in Indian newspapers not indexed by Google) I don't think it would be too hard to turn this into a intelligible article, but I see no reason to spend the effort unless this is kept. DES ^(talk) 21:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can tell, this is at most a section of Gandhi Nagar which (as referred to here) is itself a section of Jammu (city). There are other places called Gandhi Nagar (or Gandhinagar) throughout India. Mandsford (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find one or two references on websites (e.g., real estate) that indicate this exists, but I still can't quite tell what it is—a subdivision, a district, what? Without evidence that it's notable, which might include evidence that it's, for instance, a self-governing municipality, deletion seems right. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:17, 17 February 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) 06:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Tama[edit]

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

non-notable John 22:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little GS presence. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Over 5000 GHits, but this seems to be due to the fact that he's basically a journalist. Nothing I can see makes me think he's notable. StAnselm (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows 1 paper from 2004 that's never been cited. The listed book is pretty widely held, but there's quite a significant caveat here. The primary author is Lee H. Hamilton (pictured on the cover) and the frontis says "Lee H. Hamilton with Jordan Tama". This seems to be a case where someone (Tama) helped to some degree more than the others that were acknowledged. Indeed in the acknowledgments Hamilton writes "This book is the product of more than three decades of work on foreign policy which I have conducted with the help of a great number of talented and dedicated people...Jordan Tama provided me with invaluable assistance in putting the book together, and Michael Van Dusen, Kenneth Nelson...The observations made in the book are mine, however, and I take full responsibility for its content." (emphasis mine) Tama is plainly thanked here in the context of assembling the material, but specifically not for playing any substantive role in authoring the content. The "with Jordan Tama" therefore seems to be nothing more than a special kind of gratuity. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think it means Tama was the ghostwriter. StAnselm (talk)

My impression has been that ghostwriters' names don't normally appear, but if "putting the book together" is a euphemism in this case for ghostwriting, then I would still make the observation that the intellectual content probably did not come much from Tama. I think we still agree on the overall verdict. Thanks! Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 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 (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margot Rose[edit]

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

~~Not clear how this might meet WP:BIO, none of the Google news hits appear to be about this actress. Article lacks references.~~ Withdrawn, thanks to DES for the New York Times and Variety references RadioFan (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find it troubling that this has been nominated for deletion. Margot Rose the actress, the subject of this article, has been in dozens of mainstream, popular, and successful movies and television programs and has had steady work for two decades. She is, in fact, notable. From Wikipedia:Notability (people):

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Do you contend that she is in fact not sufficiently notable? Then how many movies and TV shows does it take to be "notable" in your opinion? Or perhaps you don't challenge this article based on her lack of notability, but rather on the lack of citations to supporting information. If the latter, then this is not grounds for deletion of the article. Disambigutron (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The roles are not significant enough to meet these guidelines. All articles require references, especially biographies, this has none. RadioFan (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response I created this article and this will be my only comment in this discussion. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and did go to your talk page with an earlier response, RadioFan, I apologize if that was not the correct area to comment previously. I have since added Margot's IMDB page as the reference for this page, a site that was given as an example of a reliable reference source. I hope that addresses your concerns as to references. As for her notability, I know that I have seen MANY other pages for actors and actresses that have far less credits to their body of work. No, she is not a headliner, but that should not diminish the notability of her supporting roles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinsdude (talk • contribs) 00:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Radiofan, I think you need to brush up on Wikipedia:Notability (people). Please pardon the redundancy but I feel it necessary to quote from that source once again: "3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." I must also point out (once again) that a lack of PROOF of notability is entirely different from a lack of notability itself. Do you really think that Margot Rose is in fact not notable enough for inclusion? Then let me ask this question again - how many movies and TV shows does it take? How many years of contribution to a given field of entertainment? If you have insufficient experience with Wikipedia to be able to judge which entertainers should or should not be included, I suggest taking the time to find out whether actors/actresses of similar caliber are commonly included. While not definitive, you can use this as a benchmark.Disambigutron (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And the lack of proof of notability is the issue here. References aren't optional. This requirement of verifiable evidence is one of the few requirements. You find her career prolific, but I dont and some others may not as well. If in the end the concensus is that she is notable and sufficient 3rd party sources can be found, then by all means the article should be kept. The best way to ensure this article is kept is to locate significant coverage of this person in verifiable reliable sources and improve the article with that information. --RadioFan (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References aren't optional is an essay, one I reject, not a policy or guideline. What policy says is that references are required for factual information that had been challenged in good faith, and for any negative or contentious information about a living person. No one has seriously challenged, as far as I know, the accuracy of the list of credits here, so references proving that she actually played these roles would be redundant. DES ^(talk) 00:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that RadioFan's argument is that even assuming the list of credits to be 100% accurate, that it does not establish notability without cited critical commentary. That is a plausible position to take, but I don't think it accords with WP:BIO and WP:ENT, nor with the general consensus on notability for performers. If RadioFan's argument is that the lack of cited sources for unchallanged, uncontentious facts is a reason to delete, then he is not in accord with current policy and his argument should be dismissed by the closer as not policy based. If his argument is that the number of roles does not count as "prolific", that is a judgment call. I disagree. DES ^(talk) 00:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern here is two fold, this actress does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ENT (no large fanbase, no unique or prolific contribution) because I dont see a career of minor roles as being "significant". Failing that notability needs to be demonstrated via significant coverage in 3rd party sources. As mentioned elsewhere, the quotes on her official web page are interesting, perhaps something to go on, but they are not reliable and some of them appear to be embelishments at best and fabrications at worst. The Variety references that DESiegel mentions are a very good start to demonstrating this actress as being notable. The biography there is no help, it's not every complete. Most of the others only mention her as being in the cast but there is enough there to demonstrate significant coverage therefor I am withdrawing the nomination with the assumption that someone will add these references where appropriate.--RadioFan (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I see is minor roles in some major films plus mostly one-off appearances on TV shows. (She was in one Starman TV episode, not the more notable movie.) Also, IMDb is not considered a WP:Reliable source, so it should go under the section External links. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As per Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb, and my own opinion, I think the IMDB should be considered a reliable source for titles, release dates, cast lists, and crew lists on released films. This information on the IMDB generally comes directly from the studios or the actual onscreen credits. A random user cannot simply log on and change or add to any of this information. DES ^(talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually DES, the cast & crew information about released films is just about the only thing at IMDB that is generally accepted, though as an EL and not a citation... and this because the information in those sections can be so easily verified by the film itself. It's because IMDB as a whole is not considered reliable, that the reliable portion is not usable as a source for notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment, actually actually, the only IMDB data that is commonly accepted as reliable is writer info because it comes directly from a reliable source. The rest is contributed by individuals, just like Wikipedia, though there is a review process which does filter the obvious junk, but the rest of IMDB does not get an automatic pass as being reliable.--RadioFan (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Writer or not, IMDB is still not allowable as a citation, and as I explained above, even generally reliable portions of IMDB are not used as a source because of the overall Wikipedian perception of the website. And although yes, information may be submitted by non-experts, IMDB does have a vetting process for information on cast & crew, and such is usually submitted by production itself or included because of screenshots of onscreen film credits, and they will correct errors if discovered. However, and please, I do not wish to rehash arguments about IMDB as a source, because it is not being used as one here. My point was only that cast/crew information that can be otherwise sourced to the film itself need not require additional verification. So we're left with the question as to whether or not her body of work meets WP:ENT. I and others here believe it does. Further expansion and continued expansion is a reason to improve the article through normal editing... a surmountable issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 30-year career in film and television adequately meeting WP:ENT [23]. Yes, the article could use cleanup, expansion and further sourcing, but surmountable issues are no reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MichaelQSchmidt length of career and number of credits are IMO quite enough to establish notability. Articel can surely be improved, but should not be deleted. DES ^(talk) 23:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added several references. Many more are behind paywalls, and i cannot verify that they support the article without subscriptions or doing significant library research. But no one seems to actually challenge the IMDB flimography for this actor. What is debated is its significance. DES ^(talk) 23:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some diging to do. Her official website lists several decent reviews of her work [24][25]. Enough clues are given so that a deeper search should be successful... specially for the Variety and Dramalogue reviews. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While those are excellent clues that could lead to finding reliable sources, the above links themselves are still primary sources. The references have to be verifiable, and these aren't at the moment, these are simply pull quotes with publication names, something that entertainers are known to pull out of context and/or embellish. These quotes might be from complete articles focused on this actress (which would definately help establish notability) but they might be single sentences mentioning her in a larger article focused elsewhere (which does little to establish notability). Digging a bit deeper into these quotes, there are some concerns about the verifiability of these claims:

*The Jupiter News Journal : Sounds like a newspaper but the only Google hits I get on the title bring up this actress's web page. Not something you'd expect from a reliable source.

*The Los Angeles Dispatch : Also sounds like a newspaper, but all references I see to this title talk about the Los Angles Fire Department. Perhaps its a very small, no longer in print newspaper, perhaps its a newsletter produced by some theater group, perhaps it (like the Jupiter News Journal) was made up to go along with a made up quote. Who knows if we cant verify it.

*Cue Magazine : Sounds like an entertainment or theatrical magazine but the only concrete example I've found of it is a newsletter from a company which makes DJ equipment. there was something by that name which was bought by New York magazine at some point but I'm having trouble finding their archives.

*Dramalogue : Does she mean the newspaper "Drama-logue"? Mispelling the title of a publication in your resume not once by four times doesn't create much confidence here. In any case, more specifics (such as date and page numbers) for this quote are needed

*Variety : Certainly a reliable source but needs references to specific articles, this is probably the most easy to verify.

--RadioFan (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick google search of "Margot Rose" at www.nytimes.com revealed 25 hits - 35 if omitted results are included. It appears that all of them (except for one paid death notice) refer to the "Margot Rose" at the center of this debate and not some other "Margot Rose". Here are a few: http://movies.nytimes.com/person/151174/Margot-Rose http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=980DE7D71038F93BA35751C1A964948260 http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/08/movies/nick-nolte-and-eddie-murphy-in-48-hours.html?&pagewanted=all http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/174234/A-Civil-Action/cast
- According to http://books.google.com/books?id=fRUrF2PqR1IC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=%22The+Los+Angeles+Dispatch%22+-fire+-system&source=bl&ots=ctaFlHXGZZ&sig=ZkOdEY6hIFaasss1YHCQfyswal8&hl=en&ei=CmV7S__IMcLT8QbWwZTUBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Los%20Angeles%20Dispatch%22%20-fire%20-system&f=false the Los Angeles Dispatch is (or was) a black newspaper. Just do a google search with "-fire -system" included. It apparently does not have online archives. DES ^(talk) 03:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/15/opinion/l-cue-magazine-paved-way-for-arts-guides-789495.html?pagewanted=1 this NY times article says "Cue was for hundreds of thousands of active, affluent New Yorkers the bible of where to go and what to do in the arts and entertainment until it was acquired by Rupert Murdoch and merged with New York magazine in 1977. Many maintain that no publication since Cue has provided as complete and reliable a consumer guide to the cultural life of New York City." obviously a RS for the entertainment field, I find no online archives. DES ^(talk) 03:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So at what point can we move on and stop wasting time with this?Disambigutron (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These links mention her only in a cast list or list movies or TV shows shes credited in. These references do not address the subject directly in detail as required by general notability guidelines. --RadioFan (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to see why the vast majority of your delete nominations are rejected. You don't understand the basics. Surely you do not suggest that there has been some vast conspiracy to get someone named Margot Rose included in all these cast lists. Your problem with the IMDB reference was that anyone can submit cast information. Explain how I could get myself listed in the cast of The Godfather, please. It would really impress my friends. I've provided another source - the New York Times no less - to support the information in IMDB. If you took 120 seconds (double the amount of time you spend checking out most articles) you'd find that dozens of celebrity and movie sites include her in the casts of those same movies and shows. Has Margot Rose duped them all? Perhaps she has even managed to sneak her name into the credits at the end of each movie? Heck, if she has managed to pull off such a grand feat of deception, she DEFINITELY deserves her own wiki article for that reason alone. Disambigutron (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A long career in many notable series. I saw her in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, she a main character, playing Picard's wife, and getting plenty of screen time in the hour long episode. She isn't just some minor background character who does a bit part, saying one line, and that it. These are significant roles in many notable works. Dream Focus 00:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The internal search at the online site of Variety lists 29 pages about Margot Rose, of which 5 are reviews, and most of the others appear to be series or production information pages including cast lists. However, Variety currently permits free access to only two online articles per month for any one user. I have added two review articles as refs, someone else has added a third. I have also added her general list of roles from that site to help verify the specific roles she has appeared in. DES ^(talk) 01:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi DES. It was Dream Focus and me who were tweaking the article... and I set some refs for the filmography section itself as a whole, as refs for each individual film and TV appearance was looking a bit unweildy... and are not in contention. She's had a busy career. I've also found she has coverage as a thespian and dramaturgist through an expanded search for her theater work [26]. Just takes looking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would have kept individual citations. If the cites are to be there at all, they should be useful, and it is significantly harder to see what each one does and does not support in a group like that. If any of them supported all of the roles it might reasonably go up top, but otherwise I think not. However I won't revert over the matter. Thanks for the added refs. DES ^(talk) 02:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I very much do understand... but since her career and projects are not (now) in doubt, and specially as her film and TV are understood as citable to the work itself, it is overkill to feel you have to individually cite every last one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her official website list some notable reviews of her various work. [27] I think we've proven the article should be kept already, but if anyone wants to add that in a Reception section, just search for the magazine mentioned, and her name, to verify the quotes. I doubt she'd be making that up though. Dream Focus 03:19, 17 February 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--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bliss (video game)[edit]

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

Does not introduce significant coverage in reliable sources; only introduces ONE, which is undoubtedly very insufficient. In addition, it provides no source for its main assertion of critical reception: having received mixed reviews. Fleet Command (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Wired (magazine) review is presumably the one you refer to as the ONE. Try reviving the other links using archive.org. The game was even covered in a book [28], but in at most a page; exact coverage requires a trip to library. It's also reviewed on its CNET download page [29]. Pcap ping 17:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Pcap, for you honest attempt in finding coverages. But I am afraid an article requires significant coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. The book has mentioned "Bliss" only once in a very passing mention, (and another time in the index!) CNET Download section also have received 11 votes and NO user reviews at all. Hence, although there is coverage, there is no significant coverage. Fleet Command (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Wired review is 2 pages and in-depth; this seems significant to me. I was able to revive the Gamers Mark link; please review it to see if you think it's WP:RS. The other link http://www.lovingyou.com/content/lovegames/content.shtml?ID=13 was not found in yahoo cache (which did confirm that a link to the review had been listed there) or archive.org; the entire site seems to be having problems. The article needs cleanup - the reviews section appears to be using giftshops as references. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:04, 21 February 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) 06:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emad raouf[edit]

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

non-notable actor Ipatrol (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's put this one out of its misery quickly. There is absolutely no evidence of notability anywhere. There are no secondary sources - either in the article or online. The number of red links seems to indicate that there are no Wikipedia articles for anything this chap is involved with, which even though not a determining factor, could be taken as an indicative factor of non-notability. Finally, the one "reference" in the article is a dead link! He's had his ten minutes in the Wikipedia sunshine, but I think it's sunset now! Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears to be possibly an autobigraphy. Although that isn't necessarily a reason for deletion, it does suggest that sourcing for the claims to notability need to be strong. No sourcing is provided. The single reference is a dead link. A check on the wayback machine shows this to be formerly the website of probably this person's church. That wouldn't establish notability, and a link to the front page of a church isn't useful for verifying anything. Presumably, it might verify that he was ordained a deacon at the age of 9 as claimed in the article. His career as an actor or theatre director doesn't appear to be in any way remarkable. My guess is that he heads up an improv team based on the description in the article. There are no English language sources to establish notability. This may be a case of systemic bias, so if Arabic sources turn up, I can be convinced to change my mind. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Get Paper[edit]

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

Delete. Contested prod. Absolutely zero notability. Presumably a track from a mixtape by Drake. Only thing from a Google search I got were a few sites with lyrics, to download the mp3, and youtube videos. All that shows is that the song exists. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this song. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the rather stringent policy on notability of individual songs (WP:NSONG) which states that:
"Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."
The lack of detail in the article and the absence of significant coverage in non-trivial sources indicates that this song falls into the "most" mentioned above. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTABILITY & WP:NSONG no significant 3rd party coverage which would allow it to pass. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. #11 on Wikipedia:Music states that if a song Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network then it will be kept. This songs is played lots on the major radio station Hot 103, I have many sources to back it up if you go to their website hot103live.com and look at the Hot 103. 206.45.0.225 (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rotation in Winnipeg ≠ rotation nationally. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability, no info in the article either. - eo (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just delete it, i tried to add an article about a song that was being played on multiple radio stations and many people listened to, but appaerantly that's too hard. So delete the page already, every loser here hates it. Last time I try and help Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.0.225 (talk) 17:03, 15 February 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 14:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiridia[edit]

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

Of only 2,000 Google results, I could find no independant coverage on this; most of the results were created by the creator of the subject. Ipatrol (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You've found more than I did. "El Castillo de Hater" "gomez" produces one ghit - here on WP. "Hiridia" "gomez" produces 49. I would have thought I'd have found the site where one can read the story online. As it stands, it is self-published, wherever it is, and doesn't count for notability. Ah, wait - "Hiridia" "Miguel Angel Centeno" gives 5 ghits, two being en- and es- WP. Another is a forum. Another reFers to a 'upcoming book'. WP:CRYSTAL. "El Castillo de Hater" "Miguel Angel Centeno" gives 0 ghits. http://www.caballerosdeeuropa.net/literatura-f54/hiridia-el-castillo-de-hater-t3002.htm#81475 is posted in a forum by Revan Shan, which is the user name of the creator of the article (both here and es- and both created 14th Feb). In fact, all three references are self-published. (Sorry if this is messy - I was researching something for elsewhere and eating my tea while posting this.) Peridon (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Castillo de Hater wasn't published yesterday, but I corrected a spelling mistake. Take a look at the other guys' posts date. And about google entries... What can I say, that you can't find much about it doesn't mean it isn't true. If you want another verification about the relation between name and subject you can take a look at the description on the Hiridia Total War Trailer, I think my name is included there... You can find it typing 'hiridia' on youtube, or directly on google, it's one of the first results.

About the crystal ball. I understand it, but I never said in wikipedia there will be a book, just that I'm working on one, which is totally true. There was crystalball syndrome on that forum you entered but the text I wrote here is neat and correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevanShan (talk • contribs) 08:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Things may well be true, but not notable (referring to Wikipedia's use of the term). I'm afraid that self-published things are counted as non-notable (with the possible exception of something published by someone very notable, like certain anonymously published tracts in the 1700s that were actually by someone very notable). The book is not yet available from a publisher - that's not a claim to notability under the Crystal Ball rules. All your references are self-published, blogs, forums or otherwise non-independent. You need independent coverage from non-editable sources, not to establish existence (though I didn't find the online reading site) but to establish that there is something of note. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not free web space or a directory. We don't record the about-to-be, or the I-think-this-is-good-but-no-one-else-knows-about-it. As was pointed out the other day in another discussion, even The Origin of Species might not have got an article straight away. It wouldn't have been missing for long, given the uproar that followed publication... Yes, there are other things here that do not merit their places. Things slip through. We usually catch up with them. Peridon (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non editable sources... lol Everything on the internet is editable. From that statement, well... I could only post anything in here if it's printed. Once again I would like to remember that there was no 'about to be', it's all true info. But let me tell you another thing too.

Some people come to me and tell me how great is all what I've made. That all that stuff about Hiridia appears on the internet, and even on images and video. But I want them to have some place were they can actually have some clear and resumed info, out of any sort of forum or even official webpage. It would be awesome if people could find about this with only taking a look at wikipedia. I'm sure they've already searched here, and that they wouldn't be that surprised if they saw an entry with the title of Hiridia-Wikipedia in the Google search results. RevanShan (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By non-editable is meant no blogs, no forums, no aboutus or LinkedIn. Yes, there are mentions of Hiridia on the Internet. Not all that many that I've seen - but none of those fit our requirements. We get a lot of people wanting pages here. Some are pure vanity - and some of those get kept when the other side of the picture gets added (and the original creator is doing his best to get it deleted!). Some are pure advertising - some just plugging an existing product, and others trying to promote something new. Neither of those are suitable. Many are trying to gain respectability and/or notability by having a page. If they can establish notability - on our terms and definitions - OK. If not, they can come back when they can. By the way, thank you for remaining calm. A lot of people start raving and telling us how the system should work rather than taking our advice. It doesn't do them any good. We've heard it before.

In the gap between non-notability and notability, there's always aboutus and LinkedIn. They're free, so far as I know, but as they contain rather subjective material, they're no good as references here. They will get your message to the fans and the curious. Peridon (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this is technically not a book, I think Wikipedia:Notability (books) applies. The subject of this article does not meet our guidelines. Wine Guy~Talk 10:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EHCP[edit]

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

Contested prod for a very basic article on a hosting application. There are many Ghits, but most entries seem to be blogs and forums or generated by the application itself. Tikiwont (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: probably notable as it is used by a relatively large number of servers. &dorno rocks. (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The claimed number of 720 doesn't seem like a particularly large number of servers. And in any case, that doesn't establish notability.
Delete - There is no coverage about this software in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage that I can find. 21:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 06:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kramer[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A notable film or for a notable company does not make its employees notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addionne (talk • contribs)
Delete. Over 3 years and still a stub doesn't suggest sufficient notability to justify an article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Addionne (although the subject has worked on a few good films now). A quick Google search picked up only film credits and his IMDB and Yahoo! movies entries, nothing to confirm notability. -- Avenue (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only routine coverage, credit listed etc. fails WP:CREATIVE--ClubOranje^T 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete notability not established Boleyn3 (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge - not notable by himself, although his company has won an Academy Award. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails general notability as well as WP:CREATIVE.Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 20:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable in the same way that not every member of a footbal team or a music group is notable. If Kramer himself had received an important award for his work, that might make him notable.--Kudpung (talk) 02:58, 18 February 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) 06:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maniac Spider Trash[edit]

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

Non-notable band. One member went on to later join a notable band but that does not confer notability onto this band. I would recommend merging any verifiable content from reliable sources into Wednesday 13's article but this article has no sources (and little content). TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I'm unsure, but as the cassette Dumpster Mummies (article already AfD) seems to be their only actual release, notability certainly seems doubtful. Their intended debut album, Murder Happy Fairytales, which was apparently recorded but never actually released, has its own article - if the band's article is deleted as non-notable, I guess that should go too -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Graystone[edit]

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

Delete. Fictional character with no evidence or assertion of notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Caprica characters with the other NN characters of this TV series, that have articles. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fact that character is the first cylon is notable. --Magicus69 17:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Fansih enthusiasm is not a reason to have an article; neither is a portrayal by a young actress in a nightie. Jack Merridew 21:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to obvious and undeniable evidence and assertion of notability. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to redlink an article. Indeed, no actual reason exists for deletion. This article, created a mere few days ago, is easily improveable per Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, which I started to do by use of Google News, where we find dozens of relevant hits (over 50) and even more interviews and reveiews for further expanding the development and reception sections exist on a regular Google Search that are not snagged by Google News, but that are nevertheless still on reliable secondary sources. I used only a couple of the many sources available and a better writer than I could assuredly improve those sections using the dozens of additional sources with relative ease. The character is notable by a practical or common sense standard: she figures on a well advertised show on a familiar basic cable network watched by millions of people as a main and recurring character who is essential in the mythology of one of the top ten or so most significant science fiction space franchises (Battlestar Galactica) of all time (she is the first of what becomes the chief villains, i.e. the Cylons, in a several years old franchise marketed in television, DVD movies, games, etc.). She is consistent with what Wikipedia is and is notable. Now, it is not just notable by logical standards or fun standards, but even by objective interpretations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Foremost, this character receives clear and unquestionable significant coverage in litterally dozens of reliable sources that verify the character's development, plot progression, and reception in numerous interviews, previews, and reviews that devote more than just a sentence or two each to this particularly important character. As the content in this article is neither a hoax, nor libelous, nor a copyright violation and as clear redirect or merge locations exist (to the show's article, to the character list proposed above, for example), at worst we would consider those alternatives instead of redlinking per WP:PRESERVE (a policy) and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better and even then a transwiki location would still also be considered as a courtesy to our readership per Wikipedia:Editors matter. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source better. It is a standard fictional character article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a very notable character, the first Cylon of a notable long running and insanely popular series. Don't destroy something because you don't like it, when it is clearly not harming anyone, and some might find it interesting to read. There are mentions of this character in the media, and references are now in the article. Dream Focus 00:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS indication of independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the RS for independent notability are actually fairly good for this character, which is only to be expected: in general, the central characters of major series will be separately notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator may have begun this AFD with the phrase "character with no evidence or assertion of notability"... and had that echoed by a few others, but upon a diligent WP:AFTER, I find this fictional character does indeed does have some decent coverage in multiple reliable sources. Per WP:WAF and available sources, there's no need to merge or redirect to some arbitrary list. If a concern is surmountable, there is no reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well referenced article. Per DGG and Michael. Okip ^{BLP Contest} 03:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
closing administrator please note there have been significant improvements since this nomination.[30] Okip ^{BLP Contest} 03:34, 17 February 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. Blatant hoax. NW (Talk) 21:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Suite Life With A Chance On Waverly Place[edit]

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

Looks like a hoax to me. Unsourced, created by an editor with a history of dubious additions and changes. —Kww(talk) 20:55, 14 February 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) 02:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zaheer Mrad[edit]

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

The player may exist, but no source to support it. Match Report of AFC Cup 2007 & 08 can't find him. Matthew_hk t c 04:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Try alternative spellings of his name. Zohier Mrad is listed in the current squad of Racing Beirut, this link mentions his transfer in 2008. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The case may hold on and focused on whatever the league is fully-pro and/or he may/may not passed the GNG. If he played at AFC Cup, for sure he is notable. Matthew_hk t c 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, not claims of what league he plays in; per WP:BLP and WP:N - no coverage, not notable and should be deleted -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence to suggest that the player passes either ATHLETE or more importantly the general notability guidelines. -- Big Dom 08:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it matters whether he played in the AFC Cup or AFC Champions League. The AFC Cup is not a fully-professional competition. At present, the entrants are generally from countries whose leagues don't meet the eligibility criteria for the AFC Champions League - one of these criteria is that the top-flight league is fully professional. As there aren't any Lebanese teams in this competition, we can assume the league is not fully-pro. What's more, the AFC Champions League has only been applying these criteria since 2009 (I think) so we can't count it as a fully professional competition until after then. Bottom line is, for me he fails WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (talk) 12:32, 15 February 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. In addition to overriding delete consensus, not seeing here significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michel D'Amours[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michel D'Amours

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He passes WP:ARTIST #3 as he stars in at least 24 films (a significant body of work) including the well known "Young Hung And Full Of Cum". Nominations for deletion are not intended to replace "improvement needed" tags and PORNBIO is not an excuse to purge gay pornstars from Wikipedia when their body of work is self-evident. Ash (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't pass WP:ARTIST as his work hasn't "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Do you really believe every porn star who's appeared in over 24 films is notable?. Epbr123 (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ATD should be followed here. I note that "River Patrol" got Video Of The Year by the Adam Gay Video Directory (which only exists to provide independent reviews). I guess you'll find a reason to ignore it as you are pushing so hard to delete these porn stars that you are biting Keep comments in all these related gay porn AfDs. Ash (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why are you pushing so hard to keep these non-notable porn stars? You're not doing them any favours by keeping their poorly sourced bios on Wikipedia. Epbr123 (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You fail to follow BEFORE and have been blanket converting PRODs to deletions. I have raised many articles for deletion when there was no prospect of the sources being improved to demonstrate notability, including gay porn actors; that does not appear to be the case here. Ash (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to the nom's opinion, the significant career indeed meets WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO. ASH is quite correct. Again. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain how he meets any of those criteria? Epbr123 (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better for a nominator to explain how a significant body of work possibly could not. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. His body of work doesn't include multiple notable films, so it doesn't pass WP:ENT. His body of work isn't a "unique contribution to a specific pornographic genre", so it doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Why do you claim he meets these criteria when he clearly doesn't? Epbr123 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24 films is a significant body of work that meets WP:ENT. That those films do not (yet) have articles on Wikipedia, does not make then non-notable... only that no one has yet written the articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that any of his films are notable? Epbr123 (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, 24 films is a significant body of work that meets WP:ENT. That those films do not (yet) have articles on Wikipedia, does not make then non-notable... only that no one has yet written the articles. Starring in 24 films allows me a reasonable presumption or notability, just as dismissing his body of work allows you to presume otherwise. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you want every porn star who's appeared in multiple films to have an article? You're entitled to your opinion, but it's a minority one. Epbr123 (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be reading something into my words that are not there. I am not and have not spoken about "every porn star". Such misleading presumptions are not helpful to this discussion... specially as this particular AFD seems to show your opinion as being the minority. Editors familiar with my comments at other AFDs know that I am quite willing to opine a delete if I feel guidline has not or cannot be met. I believe in the good brought to the project by diligent application of WP:IMPROVE and I always give serious consideration to the consensually supported WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE before commenting. Surmoutable issues (even if you yourself might not wish to personally surmount them in some instances as evidenced by your having turned prodded concerns into deletion nomonations) are never a valid reason for deletion. Though you might quite sincerely feel an article cannot be improved, removing those prods kinda seems that you do not wish anyone else to try, and have set a ticking clock which had not existed beforehand. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not misreading anything: "Starring in 24 films allows me a reasonable presumption of notability". If this is not what you meant to say, please then explain how Michel D'Amours is more notable than any other porn star with multiple films. Epbr123 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not about "every porn star" nor about "any other porn star". From the title on this page, I see it is about a fellow named Michel D'Amours... and no one else. His multiple awards and significant career meet WP:PORNBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't won any awards, and saying "significant career" doesn't explain anything. Epbr123 (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epbr123, your interpretation of ARTIST may be different to others. You appear to be stuck in a loop, just telling people they are wrong and putting them on the defensive is unlikely to get them to change their opinion in an AfD. I am not attempting to give you advice, just highlighting that this does not help reach a consensus. Ash (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that someone has won awards when they haven't doesn't help reach a consensus. If someone can explain to me, based on actual facts, how he meets any of the guidelines, I'd be willing to change my mind. I wouldn't be suprised if there is a loophole somewhere that makes him notable. Epbr123 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epbr123, I've noticed that loop also. Since its a given that mainstream press does not cover a gay porn star unless the gay porn star gets coverage for something not involved with gay porn, and since absolutely anyone can bring any article to AFD for just about any reason... I think it is up to the nominator in such special cases to show how WP:ATD is not a consideration and more specifically how an article about a prolific actor can somehow never be WP:IMPROVED. Please visit all the gay porn genre websites, find the gay porn articles about him, and come back and tell us how the genre-specific coverage by genre-specific does not meet guideline. Please show us your facts, rather than your opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails PORNBIO, GNG, and ENT for me. ARTIST to me is more applicable to the directors and producers of the genre. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Directors watch and give direction. Producers watch and foot the bills. It's the ARTIST that actually performs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no evidence has been advanced at this time to rebut the nominator's assertion that this article fails to meet the general guideline for notability. Nothing has been done to meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy in regard to sourcing. BLP is a core policy and not negotiable. References, so-called, don't appear to be reliable sources or even, so far as can be seen, terribly relevant. A substantial film review in a reliable source works towards makes a film notable, generally, but not necessarily any members of the cast. Walled garden anyone? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closer please note: Pornography stars, and even more specifically gay pponagraphic stars, do NOT, by the nature of their genre, receive the mainstream press coverage as do actors who keep their pants on. It is always best to judge an article for WP:POTENTIAL for improvement for what it is, not what it is not... and those that do not look for sources will naturally not find them. For instance, a search finds a May 1994 review of the film Homegrown in Gay AVN where the reviewer specifically praises D'Amours by writing "Lead star Michel D'Amours shows us he can act too, despite his heavy French Canadian accent." WARNING: Other genre-specific graphic image-laden sources include Torso magazine August 1995, Lolita mags, Zeus, BD Quebec (French), Pornteam, Gay Porn Times, Gay Erotic Archives... and many more such. And it is to be noted that he is also known by Michael D'Amours, not just the French "Michel". Almost the only thing I found without graphic images was his less-than-complete IMDB page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage you think deserves highlighting seems to be one line from a film review. Is that really the most significant, in-depth commentary there is? Angus McLellan (Talk) 04:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The question should be, are there resonable prospects for sources being improved? If there are, then ATD is appropriate as deletion is not being driven by blatent BLP violations (i.e. all data is supported by primary sources (such as the film credits in question) but may suffer from weak secondary sources). Searching the British Library catalogues shows no results for Manshots or Torso magazine, however they do have some relevant 1990s gay magazines (the HCA or LAGNA gay archive may be more useful but not all their gay archive material is catalogued on-line). The IHLIA catalogue does show matches for Manshots, for example, and has a rare international archive of erotic gay magazines. D'Amours' most productive period was 1993-1995, so online sources will be rare, however as he did appear as a big-name cover model on magazine covers and some references have already been added, it seems likely that relevant sources using private collections and institutional archives can be found, particularly if someone with knowledge of American gay archives does a little research. Ash (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe in this case, WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG fail, as per the nom. Though 24 films is significant for a mainstream actor, for a porn actor, it is not, and so WP:ENT doesn't really apply either. (I also think that WP:PORNBIO is meant to supercede WP:ENT for this reason.) Addionne (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the GNG or WP:PORNBIO appear to be met. 87.114.24.206 (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC) — 87.114.24.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michiel Leijnse[edit]

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

Unnotable corporate employee. Sources are all about Unilever and its brands, or are from Mr. Leijense himself (clearly not RS to make extraordinary claims nor to establish notability). No significant coverage of this man himself. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Prod removed by article creator. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources in article or seemingly on the internet that pertain to the man. Addionne (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I removed the tag and explained on the talk page why- i find it highly annoying to see that the tag has been added again whilst I am still in the middle of adding to the article, and with no response to the issues i raised on the talk page. As i said on the article's talk page: Somebody proposed to delete this with the reason 'Unnotable corporate employee. Sources are all about Unilever and its brands, or are from My Leijense himself (clearly not RS to make extraordinary claims nor to establihs notability). No significant coverage of this man as a person.'

That seems strange to me- the sources are reputable, including a leading Newspaper, two radio programmes and a TV documentary. A quick Google will confirm this. None of the sources are from Unilever or the man himself.

It is obvious that the sources relate to his work-as would the sources for most other business people (say, Steve Jobs- most articles mentioning his name would be related to Apple).

I am not saying this man is as famous as Steve Jobs- but he meets the requirements for notability so why not include this short article in Wikipedia? Feahl08 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Don't be annoyed by the deletion nomination. We assume good faith here - even if we can't support the article's inclusion, it's not a reflection on you as a Wikipedia editor. This debate facilitates discussion about the notability of the subject. The process can be very helpful - if there is notability, it helps establish it and build the right references into the article. If there isn't, it frees up editors' time to concentrate on other things! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails to meet the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Specifically, notability for this type of biography should first be tested against WP:ANYBIO. In this case, the subject fails both limbs:
1. There is no evidence whatsoever that the person has "notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one"; and
2. He has not "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
So what about the general notability provisions? This would require "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Clearly this is not the case. There are a handful of news articles, all of which merely quote him as a company spokesperson. This is neither significant coverage nor, more importantlt, coverage about the subject. When the subject is quoted talking about the company, it is, by definition, coverage of the company and not the subject. So, taking that into consideration, we actually have no coverage of the person at all. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources establishing notability. Dlabtot (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He may very well be an able marketer, but there is no significant coverage about him in reliable sources. Being quoted in newspapers is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 18 February 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) 06:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Dick Run[edit]

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

fails WP:Notability (films) Dlabtot (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - straight to dvd movie with no media coverage at all, let alone significant, reliable coverage. Addionne (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Took about 10 minutes to look through the news archives and couldn't find a single review of this movie. Failing WP:Notability (films) is not grounds for deletion; that said, this article should be deleted because it hasn't received significant coverage by reliable independent sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Athaenara (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 21:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK of 2010_Haiti_earthquake_conspiracy_theories#Accusations of organ harvesting by Israeli medical teams. The "Development" section was copied directly from there without attribution. The Jenny Tonge section is covered in Jenny Tonge. This doesn't warrant a seperate article. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed, this is covered in-depth, and doesn't need its own article. Addionne (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . This article and the one related to conspiracies are all blatant lies. In particular this one is charged of antisemitism. Please delete. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm? There's a difference between articles about blatant lies and articles that are blatant lies. Evercat (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ An article dealing with a particular topic does not become a POV-fork because there's another article dealing with multiple topics including the first one. It was not explained in the nomination why this article is a POV-fork, or even which POV it supposedly advocates. None of the article was "copied directly" from the 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories article; there are a couple of paragraphs that overlap, but the vast majority of the nominated article consists of new material that was never in the other article. The 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories article is in terrible shape, and it's not clear what will happen with it, but whether it stays the way it is or improves, the Israel-related conspiracy theory already forms almost all of its content, and that part would eventually have to be spun out into a new article per WP:SPINOUT and WP:SUMMARY. Since the nominated article indisputably contains much new material, I find it peculiar that the nominator suggests deleting it and not merging it into the other article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of improving the existing article, you thought you would create a new one? Why was that exactly? 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories is hardly overly long is it? By creating an entirely new article to cover just these fringe claims we give them undue weight. They are NOT widely reported and NOT notable enough to warrant a dedicated article. To act otherwise would be to advance that POV above others. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I had written most of the new article before I became aware (by chance) of the old article. I decided not to stick the new one into the old one, because that would make the old one lopsided to a comical degree and would clearly demand splitting it. The fact remains that if this article were merged into 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories, it would completely overwhelm it, and we would need to immediately split it per the first sentence of WP:SPLIT: "If... a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split be carried out". But, since you seem not to think so, I'm still wondering why you're not advocating a merge and are opting instead for the deletion of a large amount of sourced material. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the illusion that if something is sourced, it belongs in an encyclopedia. What we have here is one man's YouTube video that didn't even directly alledge organ harvesting. This dude's YouTube post was reported on by several other websites. That's it. It's not worthy of more than a couple of sentences at most. To create a whole new article implies that these allegations are either significant, widely reported on, widely held, have wider implications or are otherwise notable. They aren't. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's misrepresenting the situation. The original YouTube poster is non-notable, of course, but his post was uncritically reported on by very widely viewed media networks, was endorsed by a fairly powerful politician, and led to the sacking of another. The very fact that all this could stem from a single YouTube post by an unknown individual is highly notable, and may be unique. Do you know of any similar event? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the article is entitled Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti not The T.West YouTube Organ harvesting incident. There are not widespread claims of organ harvesting. Did you want this article to be about organ harvesting claims or a YouTube phenomena? --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the article is about the organ harvesting claims. There are several reasons these claims are notable; one if them is that - uniquely - they stem from a single, loony, YouTube post. The other reasons are that they were reported on uncritically in widely viewed media networks, were endorsed by a fairly powerful politician, and led to the sacking of another. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and totally scorch this article and the conspiracy theory article from Wikipedia, as the pages are very marginally held fringe theories and coverage of them on Wikipedia brings the project into disrepute. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy theory is a notable topic, since it was advocated or considered by important people and groups. It also led to the removal of Baroness Jenny Tonge from her post. Covering conspiracy theories will not bring Wikipedia into disrepute as long as it speaks about them in line with the WP:NPOV and WP:DUE policies. This would seem to be confirmed by the fact that Wikipedia has dozens if not hundreds of articles on conspiracy theories and has not yet been brought into disrepute - at least not by those articles. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstand me. Just covering the theories brings the project into disrepute. Everyone who has parroted this fringe theory is a known anti-Semite and would blame the Israelis for destroying the Palestinian rocket industry if they ever worked a peace plan out. To even cover it on Wikipedia would violate NPOV as it would give the appearance that this is a notable conspiracy theory, when it's not. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an antisemitic canard, but it's a notable topic because a lot of powerful people believed it. The fact that people could believe something so ridiculous is part of what makes it notable. The situation here is similar (though of course there's a difference of degree), since the theory appeared on Al Jazeera and was endorsed by Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing The Protocols, one of the most infamous antisemitic canards in history, to a conspiracy theory thrown together by a bunch of demagogues who can't comprehend Israel not being worse than Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mugabe, Kim Jong-il, Nixon, and Mao combined? Something is seriously wrong with Wikipedia if your argument is accepted... then again, I've known that for ages. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The Protocols were also written by "a bunch of demagogues". It doesn't matter who invented it, what matters is what happened with it after it was invented. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And nothing of note happened with this after it was invented. Had a few anti-Semites jump on the bandwagon, but other than that, nothing of note. It's not like The Protocols, which have been repeatedly used to justify millions of religiously-motivated crimes against Jews. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not giving much of a chance to any new phenomenon, which could hardly have had time to justify millions of crimes. The claim was reported on uncritically by Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is considered a mainstream media source and is frequently used as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. This is "a few antisemites jumping on the bandwagon"? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a reproter on Al Jazeera TV had claimed there was organ harvesting, and cited the YouTube video, I would agree with that statement. However, Al Jazeera merely republished on their website an article that reported the existence of the YouTube video. Should we retain the article to give this "new phenomenon" "a chance" to become as notable as The Protocols? --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just reporting the existence of the video, as in "whoa, look what wacky things people do on YouTube these days!" The article was about the alleged harvesting, it was citing the video as a real source, introducing it by saying "some critics have said...", and with not a word of criticism or questioning of its veracity. We shouldn't retain the article to give this "new phenomenon" "a chance" to become as notable as The Protocols. We should retain the article because, for a new topic, it's pretty darn notable. Measuring its notability by comparing it with a hundred-year-old topic is pointless, since those will always be more notable. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are not, from anything I can see, notable "Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti." There seems to have been a relatively isolated incident with Jenny Tonge. We might wish to cover that incident, but an article on the claims themselves would not be the way to do it. One can compare 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy, which has received a certain amount of press coverage, but has not resulted in an article, "Claims of Israel harvesting organs of Palestinians." This isn't an encyclopedic way to cover this material. Mackan79 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion how to cover the material in a way parallel to the way the Aftonbladet-Israel controversy covers its material? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article provides coverage of issues raised that need to be aired. Why do we need to 'censure' articles that deal with valid topical issues? Being a semite, I see no antisemitism within it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.53.235 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a forum to denounce. Its an encyclopedia and should be factual. All this conspiracy articles are making their way into Wikipedia, many of them don't even qualify as conspiracies.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looking at the key sources referring to the alleged organ theft, they're obviously anti-Israel. I mean, come on - some of them are direct quotes from Iran's leadership! And from David Duke's website?! Come on. These are hardly unbiased reliable sources. This needs to go. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, however, the question is not whether the allegations might be true (of course they're not) but whether they are notable. Saying that the sources of the allegations are anti-Israel is irrelevant. What you need to establish is whether or not they've received wide enough circulation to be worth covering in a unique article. It seems probably not. Evercat (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the fact that the sources of the rumour are anti-Semitic gives more proof that the rumour is non-notable. This is really just some YouTube prankster making stuff up and the explanation being accepted by people who need another thing to criticise Israel about, and to give it its own article affords the rumour a status it doesn't have. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per several editors, above. The sources simply don't pass muster, tied as they are to one youtube video. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to CNN's Christiane Amanpour, the Haitian Prime Minister said that "There is organ trafficking for children and other persons also, because they need all types of organs," <http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/27/haiti.earthquake.orphans/index.html#cnnSTCText> [Trusting CNN meets Wiki's pillar request for "verifiable, authoritative sources."] If there is some indication that Israel is involved, why the adamant insistence that investigating that possibility should be smothered? Wouldn't any group implied WANT an independent inquiry to show their non-invovlement? The very fact that there is heavy political pressure being applied to force silence and smother questioning looks peculiar and makes it seem obvious that KEEPING this article on Wiki is very relevant to wiki's goals of open information and neutral viewpoints versus succumbing to political pressure smother information. [And regarding neutral viewpoints, why is it that any theory that one disagrees with ends up being described a "conspiracy theory"? Looks like more smothering efforts.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kufakufa (talk • contribs) 16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request to speedy close and delete. I wrote this article with the intent that it would be about a WP:FRINGE theory, not about Israeli activities in Haiti. But it seems that, other than me, the only people endorsing keep are doing so because they identify with the fringe theory. This is disturbing, and leads me to believe that the article is badly structured and/or named in a way that makes it appear to advocate the theory rather than merely describe it. Therefore I'm withdrawing my keep endorsement and making this request. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It makes more sense to cover the whole thing under this title than under a title that links it to the unrelated HAARP stuff. Of course, I firmly believe that neither article should exist for reasons that I've detailed here, here and here. I also think it's silly to link the article to the Haiti operation. The root of the accusations can only be understood in the context of previous allegations and controversies. The next IDF operation (wherever it takes place) will generate similar accusations. We don't have separate articles for Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Gaza, Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in the West Bank, Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in the 1990s, Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in the 2000s although you'll find plenty of material to document such accusations. It's interesting to see how the initial mistake of creating and keeping 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories is resulting in such schizoid confusion. Why not create an article about the history and evolution of the IDF organ theft rumours and accusations? There's plenty of material to link the Aftonbladet controversy, the subsequent admission that some harvesting did occur in the 90's, the Haiti allegations, etc. But it's a difficult article to write and maintain because one has to mix documented evidence, documented counter-evidence, documented allegations and documented counter-allegations from sources of various importance and various objectivity. One would also need to find the subtle balance between giving undue credence to baseless accusations and whitewashing some of the unpleasant facts. So the easy way out is to bury the story in a conspiracy theory article about Haiti. Pichpich (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 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 to delete. Please take any merge discussion to the talk page of the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollie[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. iBen 20:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hollie Steel. Reyk _YO! 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article. It's too new but there's no reason to delete altogether. -- Banjeboi 16:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - IMHO, a merge would be pointless, since this information is already covered at Hollie Steel. The album is due out in one month; either keep or delete with no prejudice to recreate after the record's release. Radiopathy •talk• 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any info not already in Hollie Steel and keep redirect. Airplaneman ^talk 19:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there is a reference for the date it is to be released [31] there is no reason for deletion. ('Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable' is satisfied; not a reason for deletion now)Mohamed Magdy (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That the album has a release date is immaterial. WP:NALBUMS states that "unreleased albums are in general not notable" and this album - to be released on a record label about which I can find no information - is certainly no exception. Even without that, I would recommend delete right now - the article is sourced only by primary references or local press so there really is no notability. "The launch is expected to create considerable interest in the album from both the national media and the major record labels" is borderline spam and certainly WP:CRYSTAL. I42 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The record label is the Steels' own label, as stated in a reference in the article, so there is information. It is also on VVr2 Records which is a notable label. She finished in sixth place on Britain's biggest talent show, and her official website does give a lot of information, such as the release date of her second single and album. There are lots of articles of unreleased albums and this article does give reliable sources, so does satisfy WP:CRYSTAL and should be kept. Hassaan19 (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, nothing from her own website establishes any notability, and notability is needed in spades to counter WP:NALBUMS assertion that unreleased albums are not normally notable - self-released albums even less so. I42 (talk) 12:59, 16 February 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) 06:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archaios (band)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination after proposed deletion was contested at requests for undeletion. Article was previously deleted with concerns over the band's notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That the article is requested for undeletion because "the band would like to change some things in the article and to add some new data about their reunion." screams conflict of interest. When the reunion gathers significant coverage in reliable sources, I will revoke my delete vote - until then, lets leave it where it is. Let them promote on MySpace - not Wikipedia. Addionne (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Karachi[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. RadioFan (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seconded. I generally don't like lists on Wikipedia - and this one is particularly non-encyclopedic. Addionne (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also dislike lists of this sort. But Karachi has a population of 15-20 million people. You can't delete this one if lists of cinemas in smaller cities are allowed to remain. Disambigutron (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about WP:WAX. Addionne (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe none of these articles should exist. However I also believe in consistency. The worst possible approach would be to just arbitrarily allow lists of cinemas for some cities but not for others. So like I said - you can't delete this one if lists for smaller cities are allowed to remain. Disambigutron (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, please provide a list of the other articles so that they may be considered for deletion as well.--RadioFan (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 02:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 02:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#DIR. Warrah (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we are not the yellow pages. This particular grouping of information doesn't have encyclopedic significance but rather it is intended to be a directory. I also encourage similar articles to be looked into as well so that these pages are indeed consistent with our policy. I note that we already have a general article on the Cinema in Karachi. I have added the reference used to build this article as an EL over there. Them From Space 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no value to readers. The list is inaccurate and incomplete. There are far more cinemas in Karachi and they open and close frequently. Anyone wanting to watch a movie in Karachi would find no useful information. A list of major cinemas in Karachi is available here.[32], but there many smaller and less formal ones. The Bambino Cinema seems to be the focus of this article Aymatth2 (talk) 02:15, 16 February 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) 06:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Kaplan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to assert WP:BIO or WP:PROF - and just seems like self-promotion. A previous decision about this prof (with a slightly different article name) has been made here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_M._Kaplan - Addionne (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many BLPs are self-promotional but this does not make them non-notable. GS cites here are 81, 25, 20, 6, 6, 3 so does not appear to pass WP:Prof #1 or other categories. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Promising beginning to a career, not notable yet. MiRroar (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 08:37, 18 February 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 Tbsdy lives (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goel Ratzon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Known only for a single event, does not pass notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator - does not meet WP:BIO. Addionne (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was just deleted. NN guy who had a few girlfriends. --Shuki (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Carrying on this polygamy for decades hardly qualifies as 1E. Yonideworst (talk) 07:55, 15 February 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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of pheonix clubs[edit]

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

A list of complete and utter original research. I've never heard of a "phoenix club" and the definition that the creator has dreamt up seems to make no sense (I fail to see how a team created in protest can be a "phoenix club") -- Big Dom 18:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Well, Ok maybe pheonix club is a bit of an obscure name for the page, perhaps a rename and/or split would be better than deletion as I thinks it fits Ok under the List category it was intended for like List of stadium stands by capacity or List of rugby union stadiums by capacity. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC) :I think it would be best if this was just split into List of revival clubs and List of protest clubs as it's not a complete rubbish page, it's really under the wrong title and contains 2 conflicting elements The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OK, I've split the page up into more appropriate names so theres no need for this one anymore. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to confirm exactly what the above means, the editor has now created List of protest clubs and List of revival clubs and copied the info to those articles...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seeing as though you've !voted delete on your own article, you may as well tag it with ((db-g7)) and end this whole thing now. -- Big Dom 08:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, done that. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an unsourced pile of original research for a term that's never been used to describe any of those teams. It's also unclear what is meant by the term: this was were a protest team, this was the result of a move, and this was the result of a team who moved and all three are listed. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the most glaring thing to point out is that the title is spelt wrong..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is totally POV to say (for example) that the Wellington Phoenix arose from the failure of the New Zealand Knights (AND the Queensland Fury?). dramatic (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a made up term and concept with no notability. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 16 February 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) 06:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cherie Michan[edit]

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

Actress who does not meet the basic notability requirements. No significant coverage beyond lists of her screen appearances. Pichpich (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ENT, and her previous marriage to Anthony LaPaglia does not confer notability. Addionne (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I gave the article some cleanup and added her filmography, but there does not seem to be too much about her past WP:V [33][34]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:43, 15 February 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) 06:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BitWise IM[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found some brief mentions of it, but nothing significant. Pcap ping 21:57, 18 February 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) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

360 Kombat[edit]

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

Largely promotional article of a subject which lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is promotional in tone and Google Web shows no signs of notability or independent coverage for the subject: [35], [36]. — Rankiri (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not far from pure spam for an unrecognized martial art derivative. Not notable. Not sourced. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:58, 16 February 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 on the condition that the article is returned to userspace until issues fixed. Epbr123 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carrigan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. No significant independent coverage, and two of the award nominations listed were for the films rather the person. Epbr123 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination / Keep This badly misjudged nomination for deletion was raised less than 7 minutes after the article was re-created. This AfD should be immediately closed as a keep on the basis that no attempt has been made to apply BEFORE, it is confrontational by ignoring the open construction tag and Epbr123 (talk · contribs) has failed to give enough time to consider that the award nominations added were for the subject's directing career, not his acting career, so PORNBIO does not apply but ARTIST does. I am bitterly disappointed that an admin is behaving in such a POV deletionist and confrontational way. Ash (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination / Keep. Satisfies WP:PORNBIO. Subject of the article, Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years. Cirt (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've said, two of the award nominations listed were for the films rather the person. Epbr123 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Films where he was principally involved as the director. Cirt (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. "Best Release" is a reward for a film, not a director. "Best Director" would be an award for a director. If you look at the references for the awards, Paul Carrigan isn't mentioned. Epbr123 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are still arguing on the basis of PORNBIO, as the award was not for acting that is not a valid rationale. If you apply ARTIST then "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, ..." exactly fits this scenario of how the awards justify notability as a director. Ash (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: Film directors are frequently recognized for directing a film that then goes on to win a notable award in the "Best Picture" category. It is indeed a mark of distinction as the film director has a significant influence on the development of the film itself. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: If this were Lucus or Spielberg this argument wouldn't be taking place. -Stillwaterising (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed, the director-to-film recognition should be applied in the same manner. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I was responding to the inaccurate comment that Paul Carrigan passes PORNBIO. Regarding ARTIST, I disagree that his work is significant or well-known. I see no evidence that any of the films he's directed are notable. The notability guideline for films is that they need to have won a "major award" rather than a nomination for a not-so-major award. Epbr123 (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If your argument is based on a vague un-sourced personal opinion of the un-notability of the GayVN awards, then I suggest you withdraw this AfD and raise an AfD on GayVN Awards to decide the matter properly (it would certainly be interesting to see your list of "major" gay porn film industry awards that are more notable than AVN's). Such a discussion is off-topic for this BLP. Ash (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't matter whether the GayVN Awards are "major"; they still weren't award wins. Epbr123 (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination I'm afriad that the nominator failed to acknowledge existing guidelines regarding undeleted pages. The contruction tag affords the article a 7 day window in which it should not be nominated for previous reasons. I'm respectfully asking the nominator to withdraw his nomination. -Stillwaterising (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for withdraw of nomination: After taking a look at this, I agree with the request for the nominator to withdraw the nomination. The nomination to AFD was made 7 minutes after the article was reworked and moved back into mainspace. When nominated, the article had the ((construction)) tag at the top of the page. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urge withdrawl. The references as they stand are not sufficient to cover claims in the article, and it's laughable to claim that using some particular template guarantees immunity from sourcing objections, especially on a topic where there have been ongoing tensions about BLP implications. Having said that, seven minutes is too soon to nominate for deletion; the correct approach is to urge the article creator to keep the page out of mainspace until sourcing is impeccable, and nominate only if it returns to mainspace in such a state, or the creator refuses to userfy. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to withdraw the nomination if the article is returned to userspace. Epbr123 (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like an agreeable resolution for the time being. :) Cirt (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opie Gets Laid[edit]

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

fails WP:Notability_(films) Dlabtot (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet the WP:GNG with reviews from DVD Verdict, DVDtalk and metroactive. The first two were confirmed at the RS noticeboard, and metroactive appears to be carrying reviews from newspapers in the Bay Area. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first two were confirmed at the RS noticeboard That is simply not true - read the discussion. A mischaracterization of such magnitude is troubling to me. Also, the applicable standard here is: "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Dlabtot (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and don't infer that I'm intentionally information. That's simply unacceptable. As you will notice, I participated in the first discussion I linked to (in which I initially argued against its reliability) and if you read down in the archive there is a second discussion on the topic where several veteran editors weigh the merits of each source.

I did not ascribe a motive; I don't know why you mischaracterized the discussion, and I certainly said nothing about your intentions, but mischaracterize it you did. Dlabtot (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, normally when one is accused of the action of miss-characterization it is akin to calling someone a liar. I wouldn't say that again. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from further false accusations; The first two were confirmed at the RS noticeboard is indeed a mischaracterization of the discussion; if I'd wanted to call you a name, I would have done so. I did not and I will not. Dlabtot (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I believe you when you say that you didn't intend to insult me, I'm just saying that what you said would be considered offensive by most people. It's not a matter of namecalling, its a matter of slighting one's integrity. You can disagree with me without claiming that I'm miss-characterizing a source. I'm going to leave it at that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must again ask you to refrain from false accusations; I certainly did not say or imply anything about your integrity. What I said was that your comment was a mischaracterization of the discussion to which you linked - and I stand by that statement. Dlabtot (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mischaracterization: The act of characterizing something in an inaccurate or misleading way. When you say someone is mischaracerizing something it goes beyond simply saying that they're wrong, or you disagree with them. You are stating that they are distorting information or exhibiting a bias in their characterization. In the case of a wikieditor you are accusing them not holding to the shared values that the project stands for. So yes, that's a slight against someone's integrity as a participant on Wikipedia. I'm not looking for an apology, but you need to be aware of this difference. I'm done here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your characterization was inacurrate and misleading. That's what I said. All the additional things of which you are accusing me are things that I did not say or imply. Dlabtot (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability_(films) is a subject-specific notability guideline; these guidelines provide a sset of alternative criteria for notability. The reasoning being, if a subject meets these criteria then it is likely that sources exist demonstrating its notability and it should not be deleted. The reverse is not true. Not meeting these criteria is not grounds for deletion, only if the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. We're looking for coverage here so we have something to build an article on. It looks like some exists. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. It fails any and all notability guidelines for that reason. Dlabtot (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three reviews from reliable sources makes significant coverage from reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Verdict and DVDtalk are fan-driven review sites. Metroactive is a local weekly. Dlabtot (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll read in the second discussion that DVDTalk is not a fan-driven site as of 2007. And DVD Verdict is run by a professional film critic. The discussion shows that both sites have been around for about ten years and both have been quoted in reliable news sources. These aren't fan-blogs. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree with your characterizations, however, there is no point in us arguing about it - the closing admin can examine the discussion, the sources, and the article for him or herself and form their own judgment. Dlabtot (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Kraftlos Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article requires some cleanup, but meets criteria for inclusion through WP:GNG. Surmoutable issues are never cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it "meet the criteria"? Please point to specific sources. Dlabtot (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way?? Genre reliable sources serve genre topics, and it's always best to perform as wide a search as possible with as many different parameters as possible. One of the problems in sourcing is that its original title was Sunnyvale when first released in 2005. The newer title and name reflect a 2009 release and will naturally lead to a lot of dead ends in searches. As Sunnyvale (2005 film) it has greater coverage... from accepted reliable sources such as DVD Talk, Film Threat, and Rotten Tomatoes, showing notability through WP:GNG and significant coverage in reliable sources. There's more... but even those three are enough. The 2009 title might even have come from a comment by Ron Howard in 2007 to CNN Money. And gee... the film won 'Best Underground Movie' at the Golden Groundhogs Awards. Yup, its notable. Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must simply note that you have failed to provide any citations to reliable sources that establish the notability of this film. Dlabtot (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That you personally do not wish to accept DVD TAlk, Metro Silicon Valley, Cinema Blend, Home Media Magazine, CanMag, or even DVD Verdict as reliable enough sources in context to what is being sourced, is an issue I simply have to live with. This discussion is to reach a consensus, whether you as nominator agree with the consensus or not. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google has over 400,000 hits when I search for it, minus the words "Wikipedia" and "torrent" [37]. Lot of places review it, some of them seem notable, like this one [38]. If the DVD Talk and other ones in the article now are already confirmed as reliable sources, then that's enough. Dream Focus 20:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely irrelevant see WP:GOOGLE#Notability Dlabtot (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note @ Dlabtot: What was irrelevent was your inserting text that disparaged the review's authors in ways that would act to denigrate reviews from accepted reliable genre sources diff. I have removed your insertion of the WP:POV terms "amateur reviewer" diff as irrelevent to the coverage itself, and in your unfounded opinion being WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Such edits are not helpful, and I ask that you not repeat them. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Note @ Dlabtot: Inre your inserting your personal opinion that David Walker is "an amateur reviewer into the article as if fact, and inre the discussion on the article's talk page about Walker's expertise... even cursory research finds that for over six years Walker was the screen editor and lead film critic for Willamette Week [39][40]. During his time at Willamette Week, Walker created and programmed the Longbaugh Film Festival [41][42]. He also founded Indie Film Journal [43]. And toward his being a nationally published film critic, that veteran film critic has contributed to MSN[44], Giant Robot[45], Rap Pages[46], Screenwriter Monthly[47], DVDTalk[48], DVD Journal[49]. He is emminently qualified to opine knowledgably about independent film [50]... and assuredly no amateur. So please, let's not make personal opinions the issue here, okay? Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Beyond all the preceeding discussion, the film has had broad festival release [51] and attention from the Online Film Critics Society [52] which is hosted by Rotten Tomatoes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:16, 19 February 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 speedily deleted by User:Bwilkins, "A7: No indication that the article may meet the guidelines for inclusion." Non-admin closure. — Glenfarclas (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James kefford[edit]

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

Clearly autobiographical article, no refs, not particularly notable. Hiroe (talk) 17:46, 14 February 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) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SchemaCrawler[edit]

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

Nonnotable software: no refs, only links to the software's own page and an article by its creator. non-encyclopaedic Content largely copied from software's own page, and COI concerns as main contributor seems to be software's author. But primarily no evidence of notability. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find independent coverage. Pcap ping 21:52, 18 February 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) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Through Wall Device[edit]

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

Such devices exist, but the name appears to be a neologism - Gnews found almost nothing on it. The original version may have been created as spam. PROD removed by IP w/o explanation. Ray^Talk 16:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. THF (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. as copyvio (G12) —SpacemanSpiff 02:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BodyBuilding on a Luna Calender[edit]

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

inappropriate personal log. Please SNOW this. Ipatrol (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

im positive it will be deleted. just here to support this action.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wp:NOTWEBHOST says it all, really. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of http://www.naturalmuscle.com/html/squat_sponge.html , which I've tagged it for; if for some reason refused, then obviously delete per WP:NOT. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G12. It also fails WP:MADEUPINONEDAY and WP:OR. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:37, 15 February 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) 06:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Mack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural nomination. This article was originally deleted via AfD in 2007. Whilst in many ways it's very similar to that version, this version does at least have some sources, which makes it sufficiently different for me to decline the G4 speedy deletion request. Bringing to AfD for community consensus. Ged UK 16:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Vanispamcruftisement. References cited all appear to be generated by the subject himself. Article created by subject. (Editor name is listed in article as Monster Mack's company). Only edits since are by an SPA. No evidence online that anything in the article is in anyway notable. There isn't even any real evidence that most of the article is even accurate. Only refs independent of subject are referring to Steve Mack, who's used Monsta Mack as a nickname. Fails WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:COI.Horrorshowj (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Horrorshowj (talk) 22:01, 18 February 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 Good rescue. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah G. Buxton[edit]

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

Prod removed under strange circumstances. An established editor (here since 2007) who rarely edits actors' articles removed the PROD without comment.

No non-trivial sources found, all roles are minor characters; fails WP:RS, WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep KingMorpheus (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This is not a vote. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She had long-running roles in two soap operas and greater than zero significant film roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey TPH... minor roles?? With respects, what databse were you looking at?? Aside from her numerous significant roles in film, she blows past WP:ENT with 372 episode of Sunset Beach, 22 episodes of Days of Our Lives and rounds home plate with 194 episodes of The Bold and the Beautiful. Out of over 500 g-news hits, you believe thay were all trivial?? Yikes! In the first few clicks alone I found dozens that were quite significant. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see anything particularly weird about the de-prodding, as this actress appear to be more notable than ones typically prodded.--Milowent (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see that the article is notable, the actress has been nominated for 2 awards. And has made quite notable number of films and series.[53]
Mohamed Magdy (talk) 18:12, 15 February 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. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kai mccann[edit]

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

Page is autobiographical article about non-notable user. Hiroe (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy delete, not much to discuss. Hairhorn (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina fringe theories[edit]

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

Do I really need to? Well... okay. Section #1 is not really a "fringe theory", as the belief that AGW influences extreme weather is actually quite well supported. Section #2 mostly cites right-wing demagogues and one instance of comedy to cover the theory that "God did it because of <something I don't like>" (mostly Iraq, Israel, and/or abortion), and the rebuttals are unsourced. Section #3 (and, in fact, Section #2 too) is mostly unsourced and covers theories that did not gain coverage in reliable sources, and thus shouldn't be on Wikipedia. And, fundamentally, Wikipedia should not cover marginally-held conspiracy theories about natural phenomena as it seriously embarrasses the encyclopedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To which article, then, do we direct all of the speculation? It is not well supported that global warming led to this specific weather event (and efforts to add commentary of that sort to the main Katrina articles were staunchly rebuffed years ago). As far as I see, every other assertion in the article is sourced as to the person claiming it, and it should not be hard to find sources for general rebuttals to the fringe propositions. The fact is, this event generated an unusual amount of speculation of the nature of conspiracy theories, and we would be less informative as an encyclopedia if we omitted coverage of this phenomenon. bd2412 T 15:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Simple: we just don't cover it. That's the point of WP:FRINGE. Marginally held non-notable fringe theories—which these are—should not be covered on Wikipedia at all. And in the section about global warming, no-one is suggesting that global warming was responsible for the existence of the storm; they're suggesting that it was responsible for the severity of the storm, which is actually not a fringe theory at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete These theories are somewhat interesting, but they have not gained the traction that other conspiracy theories (JFK assassination, 9/11, the faked moon landings) have shown. By this time, it seems clear the theories are non-notable. Phiwum (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is absolutely nothing inherently notable in people claiming that god was responsible for physical phenomenon x. thats a trivial, common assertion, and of course from a religious person's point of view, obvious. we would have to have mention in every article on a physical event. any such claim would have to be inherently notable, say, the head of the national weather service, which would be surprising and garner attention. further, any such notable comments can simply be in the main article. creating this article is wildly POV, as long as all the claims listed here are fringe. by including godly, supernatural, conspiratorial together, without a source that itself lumps them together, is synthesis. arguments for keep offered here dont support keeping article, only in adding well sourced fringe theory discussions to the main article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The main article is already 120kb. bd2412 T 17:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep- Just because something is odd, or, heaven forbid, wacky, doesn't mean we delete it when its a valid encyclopedic topic. And quite frankly, given the amount of sourcing, its hard to call it anything but. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the page precludes its validity. For one, self-styling it as a "fringe theory" means that WP:FRINGE must apply to it. And looking at a few random sources from the "Goddidit" section, they're either a) dead sources or b) not reliable. There is very little, if any, evidence of the theories' notability, and these theories are not held by a proportion of people to result in an obligation to cover. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment: The article existed for more than 3 years before an editor moved the article to the "Fringe theories" title. The move was done as far as I can see unilaterally and without discussion on the talk page, and possibly has some POV issues. I therefore take issue with the suggestion that the title is QED that the article must be deleted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and also poorly sourced, sources are dead or from blogs [54]. This is what give Wikipedia a bad name. I'm surprise the article didn't claim the reason Katrina struck the coast of MS was because of the casinos. Give me a break. —Mike Allen 07:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The article" doesn't claim anything, it merely relates claims that were made by others. If some widely followed newsmaker had come out and said that the storm hit because of the casinos, that would rightly be included. While some of the links are indeed dead at this point, they were live at the time the article was written, and can be verified via the Internet Archive. bd2412 T 01:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  - You're right, this article should be removed from mainspace onto an userpage for a rewrite. Until then my decision is still the same, Delete. Thank you. —Mike Allen 02:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of the sources cited by the article remain valid. Please show me which policy justifies moving such an article out of mainspace solely based on some of the links being dead links. bd2412 T 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
      - You know, I don't even really know why I commented here, I guess because I seen "Hurricane Katrina" which is something that affected me. I let my personal feelings get in the way with this decision, so disregard my comments. I apologize. —Mike Allen 07:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:Fringe does not say that we should not cover fringe theories. It states that fringe theories should be presented as fringe. As far as I can see the strongest point WP:Fringe makes towards non-inclusion is for theories that are solely covered by proponents of said theories, such topics can not be reported in a neutral manner and should not be covered by Wikipedia. The consequence of this is that if the section Hurricane_Katrina_fringe_theories#Criticism of conjectures can be sourced then this article should be kept. The section on global warming should be merged elsewhere, note that this means that we need to keep the history of this article intact Taemyr (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, retitle and rework. The unilateral retitlting of the article to "Fringe theories" should be undone. I suggest retitling to something like "Misconceptions and alternative views about Hurricane Katrina", and reworking the article along that line. Katrina continues to be frequently mentioned in political contexts, often with rather wild or inaccurate assertions or assumptions attached. The "Rumors about the New Orleans levees" is perhaps the best part of the current article, giving some historical background. (The Divine Retribution section is perhaps the weakest; as with many religious questions much of it is related to opinions of belief that are neither provable nor disprovable by fact.) Once the POV retitling "Fringe theories" is removed, we could have a useful article dealing with too frequently repeated falsehoods and misconceptions (eg, "New Orleans was built below sea level" etc) without labeling people or notions as "fringe". -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable, but a rename is in order. Perhaps "alternative" instead of "fringe". Everyking (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that they're really not. These theories got the scantest of scant coverage, if any at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per Infrogmation, as an incredibly notable set of fringe theories. Have you read the sources? Have you heard of Pat Robertson? How about Kanye West? You know about Ray Nagin? How about the well-reported criticisms of their views? I don't mean to be rude, but I recall that in 2005, the arirwaves were filled with such stories, and the urban legends and commentary continue to this day, as documented in the article and on the Internet. For example, recent stories about Mitch Landrieu invariably mentioned Nagin's fringe theories about his "chocolate city" attest that this is not yesterday's news story. This nomination is of the WP:IMASHAMEDTHISISINWIKIPEDIA variety. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, they're not notable. This entire article sources the source of the comments, but with no indication that they were picked up, besides a Houston Chronicle "some say it was divine retribution" article, and coverage of the Chocolate City speech. This !vote, and Everyking's !vote above, is just a kneejerk "it's sourced and it exists; therefore it's notable" comment even when I repeatedly show it isn't. Besides, we shouldn't bring the topic of divine retribution into articles about the sporiadic exhibition of natural phenomena, especially if said exhibition is in living memory; see Hurricane Floyd, 2010 Haiti earthquake, Mount Pinatubo (only mentions a generic, localised, and tribal volcano deity as part of the cultural history), Tunguska event (even though that's not in living memory), September 11 attacks (not natural phenomena, but still only mentions God/Allah as the motive and not as the reason...) why should this article be the outlier? Sceptre ^(talk) 08:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll source it, OK? Goshdarn. Spector, do you ever read the newspaper? Take today's USA Today, for example: yet another story about myths about Katrina refugees. QED. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except, no, it doesn't deal with the issues discussed in the article at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That material is probably best placed in Social effects of Hurricane Katrina. bd2412 T 00:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Grammar School[edit]

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

Finishing nomination by IP. Rationale was "No indication of notability - grammar schools are not inherently notable." – User:76.102.12.35. I am neutral. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This in TIME magazine for a start: "one of the country's most prestigious places of learning". Also the New York Times as well. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Both are passing mentions, not significant coverage with the school as the subject of the article. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 03:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 03:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This is entirely comparable to the articles on High Schools in the UK and US that we keep without problem. It may need some work though. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Grammar schools, unlike secondary or high schools, are not considered inherently notable. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let us be quite clear about this. Grammar Schools are either elementary schools or they are elite High Schools (check out Manchester Grammar School). This school is the latter. Bduke (Discussion) 21:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not start with deleting the majority of the copyrighted text that appears to be copypasted word-for-word from http://www.lgs.edu.pk/ -- œ ^™ 09:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the copyvio text. Am I missing something? Jujutacular ^T · C 21:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I already removed the majority of it, check the history. There's still some left though, if you search for strings, most came from that website. -- œ ^™ 04:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources Keep based on clarification of type of school it is and addition of references RadioFan (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since American high schools are generally always kept with often only a brief mention in the local media, why should this school get deleted when there is clearly more significant coverage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if the grades served were made clear in the article.

Keep - this is not a single school but a major group of high schools and we keep school districts and groups. The lack of sourcing can be addressed by editing. As an indication of what an outstanding school this is, one of the students came out top in the world in two O-levels. [55] TerriersFan (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided in this AfD. I would not have applied WP:NHS to this necessarily because I don't know if the standards of coverage are different, but this clearly meets the standards by which US and British schools are found to be notable.--otherl left 06:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a clearly notable Grammar school, and its article should not be deleted just because someone doesn't know what that means -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:35, 20 February 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) 06:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telejoring[edit]

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

Seems to be a made-up sport with no independent coverage. Ipatrol (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find coverage of this in reliable sources. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to the article, "Telejoring was founded by Dan Pain a native British Columbia, Canada and his husky Brodie in early 2010." And as we are still in early 2010, it's not surprising that this recently WP:MADEUP sport has not received coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 18 February 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) 06:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Civil Protection and Emergency Management[edit]

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

Non-notable can not find any sources for the organization. I can find lots of people who list being a member of the organization but nothing about the group itself. Ridernyc (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at this time. As they were formed in 2009 by the merger of the Institute of Civil Defence and Disaster Studies and the Institute of Emergency Management, I thought maybe there hadn't been sufficient time for sources to appear with significant coverage of their new name. However I couldn't find sources to establish the notability of either of these two previous organisations either. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as of A7. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:41, 15 February 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) 06:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Oshana[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ENTERTAINER. No reliable sources support notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 14:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 18 February 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) 06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Brick Man of Bricktown, New Jersey[edit]

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

Unreferenced and and I can't find any information on this at all. Ridernyc (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems highly reliant on OR. I can find no sources for this or James Bricker that establish notability, nor for a B&M brick company.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 14 February 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. Considerable coverage in his local paper is not significant coverage as required. JodyB_talk 17:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pádraig McEvoy[edit]

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

Non notable politician from County Kildare in Ireland. Fails WP:Politician. Possible WP:COI and self promotion issues. Snappy (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. — Cargoking talk 14:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he moves up the ladder.Red Hurley (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. No evidence of notability per WP:POLITICIAN, nor even any assertion of such notability. However this is a more substantial article than other two Kildare councillors currently at AFD. The articles as it stands does appear to be rather self-promotional, but even if that unreferenced WP:PEACOCKery is removed, he does have the benefit of one piece of substantial coverage (an article about him in the Leinster Leader), which arguably means that he meets WP:GNG. I'm generally unhappy about taking only one article as evidence of notability, but one more piece of decent coverage, something more than a passing mention, would IMO turn this into a firm keep. I'll take a look and see what I can find. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the level of detail, and the lack of sources, I suspect the article is written by the subject, which is a WP:COI. Snappy (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changing my !vote). The article has been significantly expanded since this nomination was opened, and since the "delete" !voters above stated their view. The picture has changed substantilly, and the article now has 14 references. None of them appear to include as much substantive coverage of McEvoy as article about him in the Leinster Leader referenced above, but I now think that he meets WP:GNG through the sheer volume of coverage. (BTW, well done Snappy for removing the blatant self-promotion from the article)- --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete as he still fails WP:Politician. Local press is hardly notable? Red Hurley (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to WP:Politician, local politicians should have received significant press coverage to qualify - defined as "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.". Considering all the sources are from a local newspaper (the Leinster Leader), I don't see how it meets the criteria. Local politicians nearly always get mentions in local papers, does that mean they are all notable? This issue of notability for local Irish politicians is one that's to be discussed in a wider forum. Snappy (talk) 14:57, 20 February 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. More sources need to be added but what we have seems sufficient to keep for now. It;'s just over a week old so more should be coming soon. JodyB_talk 17:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abolfazl Attar[edit]

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

contested prod. I'm not seeing how this might meet WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources (Google news, and book searchs bring up nothing on the name, web search brings up other wikis and what appear to be primary promotional sources). Notability of awards unclear as only one of the film festivals has Wikipedia articles and it has reference issues as well. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Seems to be notable, relevant and independant sources must be added --Rirunmot 00:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

Comment Unfortunately seeming to be notable != notable. If significant coverage in verifiable 3rd party reliable sources could be added, and someone with some better knowledge of film could help us understand the notability of the film festivals mentioned in the article I would gladly withdraw this nomination, but I'm just not finding it. RadioFan (talk) 13:30, 15 February 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) 06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seamie Moore (politician)[edit]

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

Non notable politician. Fails WP:Politician Snappy (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Snappy is Wikipedia's resident Irish political guru, so he knows what he's talking about. — Cargoking talk 14:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who Guru, me? No! Its just all about the guidelines. Snappy (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are the backbone of all Irish political articles. Not that this has any relevance to this discussion. — Cargoking talk 14:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though I have voted for him in the past.Red Hurley (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG, nor even any assertion of such notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 15 February 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) 06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Kennedy (politician)[edit]

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

Non notable local politician. Fails WP:Politician Snappy (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. — Cargoking talk 14:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and compare / contrast with Catherine Murphy (politician) who should remain in.Red Hurley (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Catherine Murphy has achieved national office as a TD, and so she meets WP:Politician. Snappy (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:POLITICIAN, nor even any assertion of such notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 15 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks[edit]

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

unencyclopedic WP:NAD (though some of its content may be used on Wiktionary). In any case it requires a massive reorganization. Tcp-ip (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is Anglo-Saxon. It's part of the English language. 21:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep There are some words that can have a separate existence beyond the hidden-away Wiktionary, simply because there is a historical context to their etymology and changing usage, or there is a genuine interest in the proper usage of the word. Hence, we have articles such as bullshit, the American equivalent to the British bollocks. With 58 citations, "unencyclopedic" isn't one of the article's problems. I think there will a good deal of IDONTLIKEIT and ILIKEIT when it comes to an article about a profanity. Until the day comes that Wikipedia includes a sidebar link to Wiktionary, there's no point in telling people to look for a word in Wiktionary-- one might as well say, "Oh, go to Google". Mandsford (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 15:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surprisingly well-sourced, and not just from dictionaries. The wide range of figurative uses make this article about a word more fit for an encyclopedia than a dictionary. The court cases involving the Sex Pistols and Tony Wright seem notable and hinge on the word. I do think that there is too much style guide-like description here, but that is a matter for clean-up, not deletion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but not all articles about words are dictionary style entries; some are truly encyclopedic. Compare Thou, Yes and no, or Truthiness. Cnilep (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Includes a dictionary definition, but there's more to it than that. Feel free to embark on the massive reorganisation. pablo_hablo. 16:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a well-established precedent for Wikipedia articles about words. "Bollocks" belongs in the same class as shit, fuck, bullshit, asshole, all of which have Wikipedia articles. The bollocks article is encyclopaedic. A dictionary would typical provide a guide to pronunciation, meaning and etymology. This article includes a great deal more. It explains how "bollocks" has gone from being the usual word for testicles in Anglo-Saxon, and thus appearing in serious works, such as the first Bible in the English language. It explains how it came to be used to describe a priest and thereby acqured a figurative meaning of nonsense. It explains that it was considered obscene for a time, but provides details of the court case which ruled that it is not an obscenity. It gives lots of well-cited examples of the various figurative meanings of the word. It has some serious discussion about the perceived offensiveness of the word. It discusses the euphemisms that have been spawned from this word and the strands of humour derived from using words that sound a bit similar. It gives examples of how it has been used cleverly by prominent people (eg Alastair Campbell's "Bollocks on stilts" and Harold Pinter's "chuffed to the bollocks"). All of this is the stuff of an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. I am also pretty sure that it is the most comprehensive reference about "bollocks" that can be found anywhere. Please don't throw that away. Bluewave (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Just adding to this to answer one of the points that has been made in favour of deleting the article. Surely, we shouldn't delete articles about words simply because they are words. Surely the test for an article about a word should be the same as that for any other article: is it notable (as a word, not just in terms of its meaning)? I would argue that the word bollocks is notable. Its range of figurative meanings (some mutually contradictory) is notable. Its history is notable. The fact that it has been the subject of a court case to determine if it is an obscenity is notable. And so on. Bluewave (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of things are notable but not included in Wikipedia, because they are not within our remit, which is to be an encyclopedia. You can see a list of some of those types of things at WP:NOT. Notability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. Powers ^T 14:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a major revamp, but as has been said previously, there is no reason an encyclopedia can't have an article on a word (indeed, Wikipedia has many of them). The information in the article needs tidying up and formatting correctly, not deleting. I suspect this discussion may receive a lot of attention externally, so stand by for lots of "I like it" and "I don't like it" statements Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing this listed, I read further to justify my suggesting "delete" but instead found rather a nice article. This is certainly encyclopedic, even if overlapping with dictionary definitions. Why should anyone think WP is better without an article along these lines? Thincat (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was also surprised to find such a well-written, well-structured and impeccably-referenced article. There's no need to run to AfD screaming "transwiki to Wiktionary!" or "WP:NOT a dicdef!" if an article has the slightest hint of etymology and usage. If it requires "massive reorganisation" (which I don't think it even does), why not get some editors together to reorganise it rather then trying to delete it? --Canley (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is not for cleanup. I agree that there might be some work to do here (though not as much as is claimed), the article is well referenced and complies with all relevant policy. No reason to delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article consists of nothing but definition, etymology, and usage, all of which belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Powers ^T 20:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I've read all the previous comments about my deletion proposal. Some have pointed out that the page is interesting, which is not a point (see WP:INTERESTING). I want to point out that I didn't say that the article is completely bad. In that case, I wouldn't have added the note about moving something to Wiktionary. In fact, I was surprised to see that it is well referenced. I proposed the deletion because, when I saw this article, the Not A Dictionary Policy (WP:NAD) came to my mind. Three of the four major differences between Wikipedia and Wiktionary that are listed there applies to this article:

1) being about: WP: a thing [...] that their title can denote vs. WD: the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. Descriptions of testicles and nonsense are in the respective articles. This page contains etymology, history and usage notes.

2) synonyms: WP: duplicate articles that should be merged vs. WD: different articles. Bollocks, Bullshit, and nonsense are synonyms and have different articles. The same is true for bollocks and testicles.

3)N/A

4)homographs: WP: different articles vs. WD: one entry. the page is both about the usage in the meaning of testicles and in the meaning of nonsense. It also includes several idiomatic phrases.

According to this policy I am for deleting the article and using some of its material to improve the namesake Wiktionary article. Note that this wouldn't mean, as some said,"throwing away the most comprehensive reference about bollocks", but just placing it in the right place. some argued that the page should be kept because it is more than a dictionary entry, but the aforementioned WP:NAD answers: "Note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length. A full dictionary article (as opposed to a stub dictionary article, which is simply where Wiktionary articles start from) or encyclopedic dictionary entry would contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed. Short dictionary articles are artifacts of paper dictionaries being space-limited. Not all dictionaries are limited by the size of the paper. Wiktionary is not paper either."

The court cases may be considered for their own articles. We could consider leaving a disambiguation page, something like: "B. may mean testicles or nonsense. See also court cases' pages. Wiktionary has more about it".

This argument may apply also to other articles about words. Two have cited "bullshit" as example and perhaps it should be deleted. That article is sightly better (i.e. point 4 doesn't apply and point 1 applies to a lesser extent), though.

Of course, I have only argued that the article breaks the WP:NAD policy. If you really insist for keeping the page on Wikipedia, you should ask for a change in that policy. This would require providing a rationale for having articles about words in Wikipedia and defining notability guidelines. When does the history of a word become interesting enough? Most words have long histories. If words' histories are notable, English Wikipedia should have articles also about the words of all thousands of languages and this would result in millions more articles. Is this good for Wikipedia? I would say that it's better to keep this (interesting) task to Wiktionary. Tcp-ip (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, consensus these days appears to be that words get articles when their histories or usages are interesting enough to make a long article. Thus why such a number of our articles-about-words are about profanities. Powers ^T 03:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question...the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says that "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Could you please confirm whether this happened. If not, could I politely suggest that you do it, please. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that my responsibility? Powers ^T 14:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quoting what it says in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion which is presumably what you are following in this proposed deletion. I can only guess why it says that it is your responsibility: my guess is that if you are proposing to delete a large chunk of someone's work, you might be expected to find out whether they have an opinion on the matter. Presumably this is thought to improve the debate about the proposed deletion and result in better decision-making about deletions. Bluewave (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Oops, sorry...the "You" referred to is the person who proposed the deletion. I think that is Tcp-ip, so I was expecting an answer from them. I agree it's not Powers's responsibility if they didn't make the nomination. Bluewave (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the instructions on WP:AFDHOWTO which doesn't put it in terms of civility, hence I hadn't thought about doing it. Now I have done it. I informed the most active users according to [56] and [57] but the ones who have already shown up. These are user:BrainyBabe, user:Eebahgum and user:Bedesboy. Tcp-ip (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thankyou, the first I knew of the suggested deletion. I added mainly to the section on a bollocking and made sure it was well referenced. I have read everything above, and my opinion is like User:Bluewave's.
Every article contains a definition of something, but an Encyclopedia article should be about that something as well as defining it. This article I think does that. There's no harm in articles on abstract concepts or on figurative meanings, such as Pessimism or Shanks's pony or Spank the monkey or Euphemism: the usual format is to provide a definition, followed by examples of usage, all accepting that an Idea may be an Objective reality, an Object (philosophy), as much as a physical Object or Entity. Certainly Bollocks is not just a word, it is also an Idea, and therefore it needs a wikipedia article: and the article should be (and is) about the Idea. One would have to get rid of half Wikipedia if concept-words were all sent over to Wictionary.
I agree that the article could be broken up into smaller ones, or re-organized entirely, but I'm not sure that would necessarily improve it. And there's plenty here that would not go in a dictionary. To delete something useful is pointless when there is so much real bollocks elsewhere needing to be deleted. Finally 'bollocks' is much milder than some other expressions mentioned above, and isn't going to frighten anyone who reads it (unlike Ejaculation, perhaps): so that is not worth worrying about. Eebahgum (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the idea is the same as that covered in other articles in the encyclopedia, such as bullshit. Powers ^T 01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - On that thread I can't agree with you. Although in that first sense of 'rubbish' the two have a related use, the words work quite differently, and the concepts they embrace in their more extended uses reveal their inner divergence and difference in meaning. To be drunk, for instance, can be to be 'bolloxed', but it can't be to be 'bullshitted'. If you 'bullshit' someone it usually means you're trying to pull the wool over their eyes, but that concept is not decisive in 'bollocks' or 'bollocking' in any form. 'Bullshit' contains an intense, smelly idea whereas 'bollocks' is more random and dangly, necessary but diffuse. The word 'Crap' is used in a way more nearly similar to 'bullshit', for 'rubbish', and 'crapping someone' can be deliberately telling them something not true (quite different from crapping oneself, actually or figuratively). But you can't 'bullshit' yourself, or if you can I've never knowingly done it.
    In the case of 'giving someone a bollocking' (which is not analogous to bullshit at all) there is the idea that what they are getting is equivalent to a verbal kick in the nuts (even if the recipient is a woman). In fact the idea of a 'bollocking' contains some legitimization of verbal and emotional violence, both in the workplace and the domestic context, which is interesting because it has receded from acceptability in almost any other form. It is therefore a sociological phenomenon which is not contained in any other expression, such as 'a severe telling-off' (wherever you would find that in Wikipedia).
    You could, of course, just have a disambiguation page (Bollocks can refer to:, etc, with a list of examples), but it would be very unsatisfactory compared with an article which traces the expansions of meaning of the word. Eebahgum (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Correct. As you note, this article actually covers many concepts. One of our guiding principles is that we cover one topic per article. There isn't just one concept of "bollocks"; it's a word that has many meanings. We should not be covering all of those meanings in one article, because our entries should be about singular concepts, not collections of concepts that happen to be signified with the same word. Powers ^T 18:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, what I noted was that the many meanings develop figuratively out of certain core or essential parts of the word's primary meaning, and that that is a perfectly valid subject for an encyclopedia. You are arguing against two possibilities, one that the article should define its terms better, and the other that it should be inclusive of a wide range of interpretative elements. Plus you don't want it as it is. I think you're wrong on all three counts. The really 'different' (i.e. fully contrasting) concepts I noted were regarding the word which you, not I, introduced to this discussion, Bullshit, which as I said before has nothing to do with the present case, and which unkind people might mistake for a red herring. Eebahgum (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, the point is that the article could be rewritten any number of ways, but each of them is problematic. The literal meaning of the word is already covered at testicles. The initial figurative use is covered at nonsense. Then there's contempt. There's any number of other meanings of the word, all of which already have articles in the encyclopedia. The only alternative, then, is to keep the article as-is, but then it's simply a list of definitions, with usage notes and etymological discussion, all of which are explicitly the domain of dictionaries, not encyclopedias. There is, quite literally, nothing in the article as it stands today that would not be perfectly appropriate in a comprehensive dictionary article on the word. (It might require reorganization to fit with a particular dictionary's style guidelines, but that's not important.) I challenge anyone who thinks this article is an acceptable encyclopedia article to find a single item of discussion here that would not belong in a dictionary. Powers ^T 12:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I am looking: but I don't find your argument any further forward now than it was to start with: it still remains an assertion. There the argument ceases: and here are the voices of several editors who, without rejecting what you say absolutely, do clearly and in good faith disagree with you, even if there are some borderline issues. Your 'challenge' cannot elicit any 'proof' either way, because an encyclopedia article is in the business of definition and description. British people who use the word 'Bollocks' (in any or all of its meanings) by doing so project social and cultural signals about themselves which are recognised by others. As the article points out, the British military is one field in which the usage is understood, but it transcends conventional classes because it is also used by journalists, private school and University students, and cockney barrow-boys, with equal freedom. Its use establishes a kind of informal freemasonry or subculture of the heartier types across all classes, as opposed to the straight-laced and po-faced, who wouldn't use it, and carries combined implications of informality, sincerity and directness. (The example of a formal 'bollocking' - an emotionally violent verbal chastisement - is a good one, because if you accept the chastisement (and call it a bollocking, as Kelvin McKenzie did) then you prove that you are 'on side' with the person who administers it, and not going to run off moaning about political incorrectness and saying the employer is abusive etc. Ditto for the army or police - a test of loyalty as against self-importance or self-conceit.) The fraternity of the word Bollocks is for some very interesting reason closed to American society. All this and more is surely worth saying in Wikipedia. I think the article is simply incomplete, but that it contains much that will be valuable supporting material when such improvements occur. Eebahgum (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well now, that sort of thing maybe could be made encyclopedic. But what's there now is clearly dictionary information, and no one has put forward any sources that take could be used to create an encyclopedic work on the topic you mention. Powers ^T 03:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I think we can agree to disagree amicably enough there. But really you could direct your attention, with far greater validity, to the article called Asshole, which has all the faults you condemn in this without any redeeming aspects at all. I'm sorry to have to widen reference to these scatological and prurient terms, but there is a direct bearing. That article simply explains (by definitions) that the American form Asshole is equivalent to British Arsehole (which redirects there), and then goes on to explain that the word is used as an opprobrious epithet and gives examples. That is indeed the material for a dictionary, while the primary meaning could simply redirect to Anus. What's worse, I find that the British word 'Arse' has been made to redirect to Buttocks, which to my mind is factually inaccurate: one can think of expressions in which the substitution of one word or concept for the other would not produce good sense. An alternative word for both of these contexts is bum but of course there we meet the Anglo-American divide again, and it takes us to a disambiguation page. All this is very unsatisfactory, and Wikipedia really does need to avoid being misleading in such ways. It may be, therefore, that even a conscientious attempt to re-frame the position of the word Bollocks in Wikipedia along similar lines might produce a far worse result than leaving matters as they are, and keeping all the Bollocks material in one place. Eebahgum (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for notifying me. I did some work on the article two and a half years ago, but have long had it off my watchlist. IIRC my main contribution was re-organisation, but it seems to have slipped a little in that regard, so yes the article needs work, but that is not a reason to jettison it. There is material in here of a depth and range that no dictionary, not even the Oxford English Dictionary, would cover. WP seems to be the place for it. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not our job to make up for dictionaries' deficiencies. Powers ^T 18:25, 18 February 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. Old article. Book does not seem to have published. JodyB_talk 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Diaper Baby 2: The Invasion of the Potty Snatchers[edit]

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

Its tone is (very) inappropiate, it lacks sources, and it probably isn't even published yet. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 13:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found for this upcoming book besides a brief mention on authors website (which is itself out of date). we would need advance publicity to show that this (potentially) upcoming book is notable NOW. by the way, for those who find this series overly silly, the author has done some absolutely wonderful, serious childrens picture books, like "when cats dream" and "god bless the gargoyles".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I know this is irrelevant and off-topic, but anyway you don't have to tell me about the books. Loved them since I was 8. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 01:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:36, 15 February 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) 06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Canada[edit]

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

I think that this may be a hoax as the article was created by GraemeHerbert (talk · contribs), the same person as the CEO and founder. Also the article was created in 2009 but indicates that the airline was founded in 2005. I don't believe that almost four years later the airline was not in operation. These two versions of his user page are interesting. I was unable to find anything in Google, not always a good indication but useful, and the given external link, http://www.jetcanada.ca/, did not work when I tried it. At best it seems to be a nonexistent airline or failed attempt. Either way it should be deleted. something lame from CBW 12:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a real airline, certainly. Perhaps an imaginary one rather than a malicious hoax, though. I can find no evidence that it was even a failed attempt. The domain jetcanada.ca is registered to a software company in Aurora, Ontario, and jetcanadainc.ca to someone in Australia. At one point, the creator blanked the page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GraemeHerbert&oldid=279671622 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GraemeHerbert&oldid=259093070 for other imaginary airlines created by the same editor. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Hairhorn (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eastmain's research. It seems a hoax.--Oakshade (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best it's WP:CRYSTAL. Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a flight of fancy. Ahem, I mean fail WP:V. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per everyone else. Advertising, WP:CRYSTAL. Addionne (talk) 00:34, 15 February 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. Appears a neologism and most likely an attemot at advertising. Therefore, until solid sourcing can be brought in, it is deleted. JodyB_talk 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Document storage reduction[edit]

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

Get a total of 75 hits on google for this term, every place else I have tried I can find nothing. Ridernyc (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can this be merged to data deduplication or single-instance storage? It isn't obvious to me what distinguishes the subject of document storage reduction from either of those, but I'm also unsure how the other two techniques differ. EALacey (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem I had my first thought was to just redirect, but I have no clue. It seems like a neologism. Ridernyc (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a neologism introduced for one of its products by a software company named Xenos.[58] The creator of this article seems to have had as his/her sole purpose on Wikipedia to advertise this, also by adding a link to it in the article Enterprise content management. 131.211.113.1 (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Added later: The article creator is Wikipedia user Pganza; a google search reveals that one Peter Ganza, twitter ID pganza, is "Director, Product Marketing and Accessibility Champion @ Xenos".[59] 131.211.113.1 (talk) 23:23, 14 February 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) 06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Peter Betz[edit]

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

Looking at this article, it seems like a fairly routine murder of a relative by a relative (as routine as that can be). A brief search of Google news archives found little to no coverage outside of the local area [60]. AniMate 12:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Article appears to fail both Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), and has significant other issues that have remain unaddressed for a lengthy period of time, although these issues alone would not warrant deletion. Alphageekpa (talk) 15:18, 14 February 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 per references provided during the discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia[edit]

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

While this work certainly existed and published articles, some of which have been cited or referred to on rare occasion, there is a lack of reliable, independent sources that cover the subject in any depth. It was a short-lived, pseudo-academic periodical with little impact, reach, or significance. Moreover, I am concerned that this article was substantially written by blocked pedophilia advocates, and was even edited by the journal's founder/editor. Dominic·t 10:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst there is asrioous lack or sources, and I agree that this does not establish notability. I cannot agree with you last statement only three banned edds have editited this page, out a a figure well in double figures.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some content into article on frits bernard or pedophilia(i see the journal is referenced at that article, this may be enough). its probably notable that this journal was published, and i could find one reference to it. I dont see it being notable enough for an article, but probably needs some coverage somewhere.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's evidence of coverage; [61], [62], [63], [64], [65] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think those links that you have provided are evidence of the lack of coverage. Of them, only one is actually about the journal; the others are merely making incidental mentions of it or including it in a bibliography or footnote. The one link that actually discusses the journal itself is the last one, a book review. However, having a review included in a minor, pro-pedophilia book which was itself co-authored by one of the journal's editorial board members hardly seems like evidence of notability. Dominic·t 08:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Source one only includes snipets and it is difficult to see what degree of coverage it has recived from the source.
- The second is a review, that only means that some one has sent it to some one to be revied, it does not imoply any notability it as to the book the review is in sadley I cannot view the preciding page so again have no idea of context.
- Source three is a foot note it does however have more coverage then this One page 30, 120, 122, 123 (I think) and 128. So it would seem that this source does indead cnsider this magazine fairly notable (as an example of Pedo advocacy).
- Source four seems to be more about Mr Sandfort then the mag.
- Source five is by some one linked to this mag so cannot be used to establish notablty.
- On balance I feel tjhat this (mainly source three) has gone a long way to establishing that within accademic circles this magazine has been used as an example.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, topic has been the subject of analysis in scholarly books [66] [67] [68], and journals [69] Abductive (reasoning) 07:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Abductive. --GRuban (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Västgötska[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced and near-nonsensical machine-translation from an unreferenced article in the Swedish Wikipedia about a Swedish dialect. It has now remained in its current state for nearly ten days. In my view this type of contribution should be discouraged, but I think we should give the original "author" (in this case the person who ran the Swedish text through Google Translate), Fågelfors-Glen a chance to re-translate and re-research the subject and move the whole page to User:Fågelfors-Glen/Västgötska. Hegvald (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all bad translations can be blamed on computers. Some can be blamed on human translators who overestimate their command of the target language. If the topic is notable (and it appears to be), this is a case for cleanup rather than deletion. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olof Strömstierna, a Swedish-speaker will immediately recognize the articles I nominated for deletion today as a machine translations. Sometimes knowing the original language and its idioms and nuances will make a machine translation somewhat transparent, but in the case of this article parts of it are nearly completely incomprehensible without consulting the original, which defeats the purpose of translation.
This article suffers from the additional problem that there is absolutely no way to know the validity of the content, as even the original from which it was translated is completely unreferenced. It could be based on dialectological scholarship (but in that case, why no references?). But it may just as likely be based on someone's private recollections of the quaint speech of the picturesque peasants in the place where he spent his childhood summers, which I believe would be problematic in view of the policy on original research. --Hegvald (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it strange that there are no references, it is after all copied and machine translated from the Swedish wikipedia. I'm fine with having it deleted, it is totally nonsense, and it's quite hard translating a Swedish dialect into english. Fågelfors-Glen (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now i've edited the page, hopes it matches Wiki-standards, Fågelfors-Glen (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I did some additional cleanup for clarity and flow; I believe all of the artifacts of translation are gone. What remains is a brief overview of the changes between this dialect and Standard Swedish. There is one ref - the same ref as in the Swedish wikipedia. I'd like more, and I'm surprised there isn't some textbook somewhere that talks about this and other Swedish dialects. But I think we have enough here to keep it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The text is better but I will not really stretch as far as withdrawing this nomination. In response to Ultraexactzz, there are obviously going to be publications on the topic for anyone looking for them. One possible search of LIBRIS brings up a few titles ranging from an 18th century work (originally in Latin, published in Swedish in 1993) to relatively recent ones, but this is almost certainly just scratching the surface, as many articles are not going to be included as individual titles in the catalogue, and other publications may simply evade a search with these particular keywords.
To Glen: If you are interested in working on the topic, I would suggest getting yourself to the nearest university library and looking at what they have about Swedish dialects. Look at a few of the most recent works and check what they refer to as older standard works on the subject. Then use these works (both the newer and the older but not completely outdated ones) to write an article. I think you will find that this will give more satisfaction and that you will learn more from the experience than just running things through Google Translate. You should probably begin by checking the website (dialect department) of the Swedish Institute for Language and Folklore and perhaps contact them for some tips. --Hegvald (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I've just Googled "westgothian", and this came up. Unfortunately you have to pay for it, but the Google summary has "Westgothian pedlars', and their special language was known as ... is of Westgothian origin: to speak a secret language', plus the suffix ...". Another reference to the same book, here shows 4 occurrences of the term (two are in the index). I know that's pretty weak, but it does refer to "Westgothian" in the context of language - there must be proper references out there somewhere. Westrogothia#Culture does claim that "In Västergötland the Götaland dialect of Swedish is spoken", but unfortunately that isn't referenced. Anyway, that wasn't the most productive bit of searching I've ever done, but it might give others some ideas - and I think the possibility of it being notable is too strong for a Delete right now -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That the subject exists and that there are "proper references out there somewhere" has never been in question. Hopefully, Fågelfors-Glen will take my advice above and consult the main institution specializing in Swedish dialect studies. --Hegvald (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn with no delete vote standing. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Anckarstierna[edit]

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

This is a near-nonsensical machine-translation from an article in the Swedish Wikipedia about a Swedish admiral. It has now remained in nearly its original state for a month. In my view this type of contribution should be discouraged, and credit for starting the page should be given to whoever eventually makes half an effort to write an article, rather than just taking a foreign article and running it through Google Translate. There are enough people who read Swedish and write decent English around for someone to write a proper article eventually. However, rather than completely erasing it, I would suggest moving this to User:Waase/Cornelius Anckarstierna in order to encourage the user who posted it to continue working on it and repost it in a non-gibberish version. --Hegvald (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all bad translations can be blamed on computers. Some can be blamed on human translators who overestimate their command of the target language. If the topic is notable (and it appears to be), this is a case for cleanup rather than deletion. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olof Strömstierna, a Swedish-speaker will immediately recognize the articles I nominated for deletion today as a machine translations. --Hegvald (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is bad, and the subject is not particularly notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not an issue here. Plenty of sources are available: [70], [71], [72], [73], etc. I'll try to rewrite the article. The leftorium 16:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite is now done. The leftorium 19:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing seems to have some issues (a young-adult book and a later-published contemporary source claimed to be in Swedish when it actually seems to be in Danish -- I can't access the text in Google Books to check), but the article has still been substantially improved and I'll now withdraw my nomination. But if I understand the policies correctly, I don't think I can close this discussion myself, because of OpenFuture's "delete" vote. --Hegvald (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'm changing it to neutral. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:13, 14 February 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 after User:Theleftorium's rewrite of the article. Hegvald (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olof Strömstierna[edit]

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

This is a near-nonsensical machine-translation from an article in the Swedish Wikipedia about a Swedish admiral. It has now remained in nearly its original state for several months. In my view this type of contribution should be discouraged, and credit for starting the page should be given to whoever eventually makes half an effort to write an article, rather than just taking a foreign article and running it through Google Translate. There are enough people who read Swedish and write decent English around for someone to write a proper article eventually. However, rather than completely erasing it, I would suggest moving this to User:Waase/Olof Strömstierna in order to encourage the user who posted it to continue working on it and repost it in a non-gibberish version. --Hegvald (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all bad translations can be blamed on computers. Some can be blamed on human translators who overestimate their command of the target language. If the topic is notable (and it appears to be), this is a case for cleanup rather than deletion. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may not change your view, but if you knew Swedish you would see how this is obviously translated by a machine (literal translations of personal names is one sign of this). --Hegvald (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hegvald is probably right about this article and the other two translations from Swedish. I just wish that the articles could be salvaged rather than deleted. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they were to be moved to user subpages, no content would actually be lost. --Hegvald (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RUBBISH. The article should be cleaned up, not deleted. Here's a good reference that could be used: [74] (Svenskt biografiskt handlexikon). The leftorium 10:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theleftorium, if you finish your "cleanup" of the article, you can consider this nomination withdrawn. But I think you will find that doing so will be little different from rewriting the whole article from scratch, which makes it rather unnecessary for Wikipedia to accept automatic translations like this one in the first place. (As for the availability of sources, this was never an issue. I suspect that a bit of research may even uncover more up-to-date sources than a compact biographical dictionary from 1906). --Hegvald (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand what you mean about automatic translations. It's definitely not a good option, and the text in this article would be copyvio if it wasn't in the public domain. I do think, however, that stubbing or rewriting is a better option than deletion. I'll clean up the remainder of the article now. :) The leftorium 11:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished the cleanup now. The leftorium 11:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as G10 Attack Page for Trapo (disambiguation) - disambiguating living persons via a perjorative term - and as a G3 Vandalism for Trapo - inflammatory redirect. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trapo (disambiguation)[edit]

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

I think this might be some sort of attack page but I'm not sure. I can't find any reference to "Trapo" in these pages, and there's no apparent connection. The creator's username is also suspicious, and given that an editor with no other edits is creating a disambig page with the proper format and tags, I'm suspicious. But assuming good faith, I'm taking it here. Shadowjams (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm also including Trapo, created by the same user, which is a redirect. Shadowjams (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I'm also not sure if you can bundle a redirect in with an article at AfD (since redirects really should go to RfD), but I guess objecting would just be a petty procedural quibble. Reyk _YO! 08:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I have, and unlike a template or something outside the namespace, redirects are simple edits. This one is inextricably tied up in the outcome of this discussion. So while there is a distinction for prod and CSD, I'm aware of none for AfD. We certainly don't want people to go around creating [[Name of my enemey]] redirects to [[Name of something insulting]]. In the event there is some conflict with this procedure, I believe this is one of those few times were WP:IAR makes sense. Shadowjams (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No need for IAR, WP:DEL#REASON is quite clear: "Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish". Emphasis added. Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- "Trapo" does indeed appear to be an insult: [75], although it also could be a contraction of "traditional politician". Reyk _YO! 08:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided only confirms my suspicions. Thank you for that. Given that all of the politicians linked are Filipino, this only reinforces the pejorative nature of the term. Shadowjams (talk) 09:00, 14 February 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) 06:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cochicken[edit]

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

Neologism, no citations as to importance Brianhe (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any reliable references, nor are any provided in the article. It's simply a reference to one episode of a viral marketing campaign. Furthermore, nothing sets this particular episode apart from the rest; without a reference to confirm the Today Show claim, it's simply another non-notable, unverifiable neologism. —LedgendGamer 09:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The host of the YouTube show admits on the episode that they made it up. smithers - talk 17:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious WP:N failure. Should have been prodded instead. Dlabtot (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was prod'ed on 2/11 so could not be resubmitted. - Brianhe (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUPINONEDAY and WP:N. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. There are a few sources mentioning Cochicken as a popular segment of Will It Blend?[76]; the Today Show appearance is mentioned by a Business Week reporter[77] and possibly elsewhere[78] (the Google News summary of the Star Tribune article listed on that page mentions it, but the article[79] is at a pay site so I can't verify the content of the full article). But I still don't see any need for an article separate from Will It Blend? I thought User:Colonel Warden's redirect solution[80] was an appropriate one, but I suppose deletion is also a workable solution since a search of the word "cochicken" should still lead the user to the Will It Blend? article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:47, 20 February 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. Most contributors believe that the sourcing is still insufficient for the subject to escape crystal ball status. Sandstein 07:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Stephen King & Peter Straub novel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Untitled Stephen King & Peter Straub novel

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

Unnotable "untitled" work that hasn't even been started yet. Purely a rumor mill with three sourced sentences that do not show any notability to this purported, non-existent work. Not even a worthy redirect title. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Obviously, there are independent sources stating this work will be written and there has been since 2004. In most cases "Untitled", etc are very bad articles that need to be deleted, so I would propose renaming this one Talisman 3, but as far as being properly sourced, I think this belongs.BillyJack193 (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will be written is not written yet. Either could be killed in a car accident tomorrow. Wikipedia does not operate on future notability for works not even started yet, nor do we generally do placeholders for "untitled" works (and as yet, its real title is not confirmed). Any mention of the potential sequel is already in the existing books articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My response is simple. Please check out this page.BillyJack193 (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you have 24 hours from this time to prove to me that the year 2011 will happen or I will propose every article such as that one (2011 in sports, music, etc) for deletion. The book has been mentioned by reliable sources. I am sure there are thousands of articles on here about albums that have not yet been recorded. This article has been here since October 2004 and yet the album will not be released until 2011. And all of it was recorded well after 2004 and some is yet to be recorded. Or check out the artice for this film set to be released in 2012 and with no sources whatsoever and no word that filming has begun. It is general Wikipedia procedure to begin an article when a project is announced. While you are correct that it is generally good procedure not to name articles "Untitled ----" or "--------'s 5th studio album", in this case there are enough reliable sources for an article to exist.BillyJack193 (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER "If the name and track order of a future album are not yet known, the album is very likely to see its page deleted from Wikipedia. Pages of this sort usually take the naming convention "[name of artist]'s [nth] studio album". There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known" —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyJack193 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is, of course, absurdly ridiculous. Everyone on this planet could die and time will move on. That is a basic fact of life. As for the actual articles, if they are unsourced and there is no significant coverage of them to meet WP:CRYSTAL, by all means propose them for deletion. Two minor mentions in reliable sources does not make THIS untitled book exists (and Twitter is not RS), nor does it guarantee it existence. Again, the existence of other inappropriate articles, as you yourself have pointed out, is NOT a valid reason to keep this one. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will try to look for some more sources tomorrow. IF I fail to find them, I may change my vote. I see your point and I apologize for my rude response.BillyJack193 (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep We have articles for other upcoming and unwritten books. There are two such for Stephen King alone, as well as other authors. They are all sourced, so I don't see any problems with this. There's no crystal-balling, if the article makes it clear that this book is only in the planning stages, but since enough media coverage exists, I think an article is valid. I just added another recent mention of this book to the article; I'm sure if additional sources are needed, more could be added. The book will very likely get written; if not, the article could still remain as a document of what the authors were saying and planning about it. Since there has been talk about this proposed novel going back nine years, I thought it was important to chronicle just that fact. Jmj713 (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Straub on Twitter said that planning will begin in about a year. Not writing. The buzz is not really significant yet. If kept, I would rename to reflect that it should be the third book of a particular trilogy. "Untitled novel" is too imprecise.--74.58.176.70 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz not significant? There have been mentions going back to 2001, and now that it's been confirmed to start within a year, I'm sure more updates will be made throughout the year. Jmj713 (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A rare non-musical example of WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"any future subject for which a name is not yet known and no verifiable information from reliable sources yet exists" - but there are sources. Jmj713 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HAMMMER[time]. "The two authors should restart their collaboration in late 2010.[1]" Well then. The confirmation of a new book is not an indication of notability in particular since every one of those confirmations are coming from the authors, which is sort of inherent, and again, the point of TenPoundHammer's reasoning. I fully adopt that here. Shadowjams (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that this applies here. Jmj713 (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Downloader for X[edit]

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

Seems non-notable software, and the article is plagued with WP:OR, rather hard to remove or fix given the lack of reliable sources addressing the issues. The google books and news archive articles only have passing mentions of this software, so it fails WP:GNG in that regard. Pcap ping 05:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hi, I created this article, and agree it is no longer of any use to anybody. The software hasn't been updated for so long it is no longer relevant.HorseloverFat (talk)

Notability is not temporary; if it was ever notable at some point in the past then it's still worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:20, 16 February 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 article author's promise of a marketing campaign arouses a suspicion that this article is intended as part of it; but in any case, a future marketing campaign and a single reference in a local paper do not establishe notability to the standard of WP:BK. JohnCD (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From The Ashes by Rafael A. Marti[edit]

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

no indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks any references to 3rd party sources. The only Google hits I'm finding are to book sale sites. RadioFan (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I was able to find it on Google Books, I had similar difficulty trying to find any 3rd party coverage of the book or the author. The article is similarly devoid of references, pointing out where the book can be bought but not where it's mentioned. I couldn't even find an independent review, reliable or not. Therefore, I'd say that it clearly fails WP:NB. —LedgendGamer 09:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've taken the liberty of adding a link to newspaper blurb with reviews and there will be a marketing campaign in the next several weeks from the publisher. (this message was copied from here)

Comment a single newspaper article does do much to establish notability here. A marketing campaign also doesn't help estalish notability either. RadioFan (talk) 18:58, 16 February 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) 06:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of demonyms of programming languages[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic. At best a list of dictdefs, many of them neologisms. See WP:NOT#DICT. Also the page title is incorrect. Demonym refers to a place name, not a usage name. "Essayist" (one who writes essays) is not a Demonym, and therefore neither is, say "APLer" (one who uses APL) -- a term i can testify is long established in the APL community. DES ^(talk) 04:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 04:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologisms. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oh, no. "Demonym" is too cutesy. Let's at least pretend to be a serious encyclopedia here, people. The list, as short as it is now, already appears to be full of errors, hinting at how problematic the list may be to maintain. Sources are thin, here - I don't think coboler and rubyist are really all that popular, are they? smalltalker's source does not even back up the use of "smalltalker". ErikHaugen (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

House of Education[edit]

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

Non-notable website advertising for-profit educational institutions 2 says you, says two 03:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any reliable sources to convey notability. Fails WP:WEB. —LedgendGamer 07:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It appears to have changed its name to "Career School Source" - its URL (ext link 1) redirects to http://www.careerschoolsource.com. But I could find no reliable sources for that either -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:33, 21 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erinsborough High[edit]

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

Delete Cruft. Do we really need to have an article about a fictional high school which does little more than list the years that the show's characters attended? After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neighbours or Erinsborough or some other appropriate title- it's not notable in itself but it could be a plausible search term. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 18:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First pref: delete per nom, second pref Redirect per above. Orderinchaos 07:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Erinsborough article has a section on the school, which means that a seperate article isn't needed. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:38, 21 February 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 due to failure to find multiple reliable sources which can verify enough information to meet any of the notability requirements. The sources provided here are either not reliable, not significant covereage, or neither reliable nor significant coverage. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Ku[edit]

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

Non-notable stand-up comedian whose claim to fame is finishing in eleventh place in a little-watched reality-tv show about stand-up comedians that has yet to launch a single career. Unsourced BLP. THF (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. A few seconds' search yields: [81] (2008); [82] (2008); [83] (abstract)(2005); [84] (2006); [85] (2007); and more if you care to look. Note that only the first two are after Ku's association with Last Comic Standing in 2008. The others are before that and do not mention it (can't be sure of the one that's online only as an abstract). Her notability is independent of the TV show. THF may not have previously heard of her, but she'd been around and getting coverage prior to the show. TJRC (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Analysis of links

From realitywanted.com (and about LCS) not RS
From buddytv.com (and about LCS) not RS
Boston Herald article, literally two words--Ku is listed as one of twelve minority female comics performing at a $15 show in Somerville, not "significant secondary coverage"
Boston Globe interview from the same show about being an minority female stand-up comic, interviews three of the performers about the subject, provides no biographic information about Ku, other than her age, her outfit, that she has a bad joke that has offended audience members in the past, and that she bombed in front of the crowd
Boston Globe article about public speaking, with one quote from Ku.

My opinion isn't changed from this information. THF (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm not convinced she's there yet. THF's assessments seems persuasive Vartanza (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: (but needs expanding ) not alot of details in this artilce, but I believe anyone that is listed/credited in the IMDB is of note. not everyone is a george washington or a bruce willis, but there are less known ppl who are also of note, perhaps not on a global scale like lord lister and his germs, but on a more local scale. Esther ku is extremely well known in the comedy circles here in new york city, but the nature of standup comedy is that you play to an audience of 100, and for a brief 5 or 10 minute stage time.. its hard to be really get famous doing that, getting on last comic standing is a great achievement. like I said, rodney dangerfield deserves to be in ANY encyclopedia.. but wikipedia is for the people, so inclusion of a comic lesser than eddie murphy or dave chapelle should remain in wiki. after all, I really think she will get bigger and bigger so eventually this artile has to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miscusi (talk • contribs) 05:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage, 30-minute NPR interview of Ku and Richard Lewis (comedian): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91922566 TJRC (talk) 20:49, 22 February 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) 06:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardjump[edit]

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

Unsourced how-to of an apparent neologism. Was already deleted via PROD once, so sending to AfD. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find any reliable sources about this article which does have a neologistical feel: the vast majority of the hits are how-to videos and message boards. TheTito ^Discuss 09:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black people in Australia[edit]

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

Delete. The assertion that the term "black" in an Australian context uniquely describes sub-Saharan Africans is a ridiculous claim and undermines the entire basis of the article. Digestible (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Digestible (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an ill-conceived and unreferenced article that asserts a title having no common understanding. "Black people" is not a label of convenience. To dissociate it from Aboriginal and Torres Strait people is particularly offensive. The limited nature of the content reinforces stereotypes that "black people" can only sing and play sport. WWGB (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all of the above. The 73 other articles in Category:Ethnic groups in Australia more than adequately cover whatever this article attempts to do. If it was to be kept, it would need a complete rewrite as excluding Aboriginal Australians from the scope is mind-blowingly US-centric.The-Pope (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aren't we all of African descent? Classifying by skin colour sounds like South Africa in 1960. Not a good title or definition. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: All above comments. Per Criterion G10. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 04:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. Rklawton (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and probably Speedy Keep (specifically see point 2, subpoint 4). If using "Black" in the name is an issue, then begin a Wikipedia:Requested move. AFD is not an appropriate venue for resolving content disputes.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what it could be moved to. "Black" isn't the only problem. Based on what I see as the originator's goals, it maybe should be "People who live in Australia who have darkish skin, who have ancestors who came originally from sub-Saharan Africa who also lived in the Caribbean or USA or other places near there, and who emigrated to Australia at some stage." It's a very unclear goal based largely on a perceived racial grouping in itself based on skin colour. HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

African Diaspora is fairly well defined. Personally, I think that it's great that you think such a grouping is unclear, but the fact is that most of the rest of the world doesn't. Your stated view here (unfortunately) seems to be a fringe view, although it's certainly a nice one, which I hope spreads!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the originator meant African Diaspora, why didn't he say so? Black people in Australia has multiple meanings and connotations, especially within Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask him\her, but I would note that ((African diaspora)) is on the page... anyway, I added a ref to the lead, which was easy enough to locate (I did it between my reply above and this one, after all). Just goes to show, doing a little actual work often leads to positive results.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Despite the sarcasm, you have just about convinced me that there may be a topic somewhere around this subject that's worth having, but having seen the posts below I shall for the moment leave Mattinbgn's comments to stand to refelct my concerns well. HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the sarcasm. The only excuse that I have is that I'm pretty tired, and I'm still kind of pissed that the New Jersey Devils lost tonight, which unfortunately seems to be bleeding over a little into my comments here on Wikipedia.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. :-) I have similar problems when the Geelong Cats lose, although they done quite nicely lately. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how this source supports this statement "Black people in Australia are designations used for people of African descent who reside in Australia."? The statement is untrue and the source (at least what I can see here for example) does not support the statement. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just read through it Matt... let's see... pages 6, 9-11, 13 & 14, (especially) 18 & 19, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32, 36, and others all mention ethnic groupings based on or around peoples of African decent. I don't dispute the fact that the term "Black" is probably meaningless (if not confusing) in Australia, which is why I suggested using WP:RM above. If there is no serious concern with the potential move though, which seems possible based on this discussion, then just move and edit the article without bothering with the RM process. The problem here simply seems to be with one word, so just change it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I must oppose this suggestion. I do not believe that it's appropriate even to setup a redirect on that article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the article title isn't the real issue here, but the overlap between this and African Australian. Could you comment on that? Would you recommend Merge instead of keep? Donama (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an aside, if it's decided that this AfD is clear enough to establish a precedent, the same thing should probably happen to Black people in Scotland. GlassCobra 05:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree, because the Black people in Scotland article refers to the African diaspora present in Scotland, whereas this article does not (because African Australian already covers that). Donama (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit conflict)Per all the above. Nothing else left to say. Repeating what they have said would be redundant, as this article is.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not opposed to an article based around the theme that the original author intends and it seems silly to me to insist the topic can't be defined. That said, this article, with a grossly misleading name, is not a good place to start. The article would need to be completely rewritten to be saved. The lede is completely unsourced (and flat out wrong, the term "black" is primarily used to describe ATSI people in Australia with a qualifier needed to describe black people of African descent) and the "list" is not very useful. A good article on this topic would not include anything in this current version so best to delete it and let someone else try again, perhaps under a more appropriate name. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the usage of the term is problematic as it has serious ambiguity in its usage - support Mattinbgn's suggestion, if it was to be done with adequate understanding of the Australian context it needs a complete re-start. Satu Suro 07:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Keep I don't really know what to do here. This could form the basis of a good article, or at the very least, a section in African diaspora .. but I realize that the current title is problematic. I'm not Australian, but I do know that Aboriginals have referred to themselves as black throughout history and even in recent times (there is a poem sometimes attributed to Rob Riley that ends with the line ...but the blackman keeps it in his head.) This looks like it will end as a delete, but I encourage the creator of the article to work with others in the hopes of getting his list of Africans into an article that can be mutually agreed upon. (I notice African Australian exists, but it notes that half of Africans in Australia are whites from S Africa). ♥Soap ♥ 14:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explicitly stating keep now because I feel deleting the article only to re-create the content somewhere else would be an unnecessary step and an insult to the article creator. Additionally, to the people saying the article is an attack page because it portrays Africans as being nothing but musicians and atheletes, we really really shouldn't be deleting an article just because it portrays a stereotype, so long as the information is nonetheless true. Lastly, I'm not aware of any rule stating that lists of articles need references ... but if there is such a rule now, refs could easily be added since every article is either a blue link or a stub (for those of us who have stub highlighting turned on), and for the same reasn I don't see any validity to the argument that this article doesn't pass notability, as the people on it certainly do. ♥Soap ♥ 14:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of your logic except for your initial statement. I don't think there is any unique content (that's not already at African Australian) in this article that it would be recreated elsewhere. Please consider the article again... What not-already-covered topics/points is it bringing to the attention of the reader? Donama (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list, which is what I see as the core of the article ... even if the introduction is wrong (which I agree it is). African Australian has a collage of four people in the infobox, but unlike most other articles of its type it lacks a longer list of famous and notable African Australians (be they of Bantu descent or otherwise). —Soap— 14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that this article is the same topic as African Australian. Would you support a Merge with that instead of Keep so that the information is not lost but placed at a more sensible (universally understandable) location? Donama (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really believe in !voting "merge" on an AfD. To me, the important thing is whether the article gets deleted or not ... a merge in which the original article is deleted is different than a merge in which the article is simply redirected because in the case of deletion there is no way for editors to look back at the original content to help them work it into the text of the new article. Even aside from that, though, I am not sure that African Australian would be the best place for this information to go, though, as this "black Australian" category includes people whose ancestry is from the Caribbean. So I cant say Im in favor of a merger with no particularly good article to merge it to. —Soap— 23:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that the whole premise that "The term 'Black people in Australia' does not refer to the Aboriginals" but that it does refer to "people of African descent who reside in Australia" is ridiculous, but this article is essentially a vehicle for a very specific list. As others have pointed out, African Australian, as written, encompasses black and white persons who have immigrated in from the African continent, or have ancestors who did. If one must do the "this one's black, but that one isn't" thing, it would be more appropriate in that article. Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry for my fast run to speedy on this. I now recommend delete. The page I think almost meets G10, but it doesn't fully meet it. I have reread the page. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly after merge to African Australian but I'd go with the general consensus on whether that should be done). My rationale is along the same lines as User:The-Pope. The concept of the article is not encyclopaedic. It's unclear to me what "Black people in Australia" really means and as far as I know there is no standard definition for that phrase at all. The linked references in the article as it stands did not help. If the concept refers to the African diaspora in Australia then there is already a good article existing for that purpose at African immigrants to Australia (redirects to African Australian). Donama (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated as per User:Soap's comments on why it is a bad idea to vote merge (and others comment on why a redirect is problematic).Donama (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Change !vote to delete after possibly moving some material to African Australian. The whole lede is total bollocks (see article for deletion higher up). The term "black people" is simply not used in that sense. Australians do not have the same obsession with skin colour as people from the US do. Just coming from Africa is good enough, without dividibg them up into two groups "white" and "black". --Bduke (Discussion) 05:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal people are dark skinned, and most definitely not African. Strongly oppose a merge and redirect. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree what you say about Aboriginal people, but this article is not about them. The lists could easily be added to African Australian. If you do not like the name of the redirect, then I guess we could delete it, but the redirect would keep the history. -Bduke (Discussion) 09:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a big problem with a redirect such as this. Redirecting "Black people in Australia" to "African Australians" would, to be frank, potentially inflammatory and quite possibly insulting to many Australian Aborigines, a people who are intensely proud of their culture and connection with the land. To redirect here would be an egregious violation of NPOV policy. I cannot support this compromise. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just Aborigines that would be insulted. Every "<Insert colour here> people in Australia" article is problematic. While some other countries may insist on dividing their peoples according to colour or ethnicity, it's not something that is done by Australians. You're either Australian or you're not, with the default assumption being that you're Australian. Colour has never been an issue. Even with recent American influence in this area this is not the case. An "African Australian" can be any colour they want, even white, unlike an African American, where a white African immigrant cannot be African American while a black American who has never been outside of the continental U.S. can. If it has to exist, Black people in Australia should represent all black people in Australia, not just a select few, and a redirect needs to point to an article that does this. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with pretty much everything here, except the fact that it's never been an issue. Sadly, it has been. But I agree that it is not the current mainstream view. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone else pointed out, unless you want this article to redirect to African Australian (leaving this problematic title a problem), you'd need to vote Delete rather than Merge. Correcting my own vote in accordance with that to make reaching consensus easier. Donama (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I'm an Australian, and this entire article is ridiculous. What are we going to do, create Yellow people in Australia or White people in Australia? Honestly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? We could provide links to the article of every white Australian who has an article on Wikipedia. Sound silly? Of course it does but that's exactly what this article is, and nothing more. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering where Australians of Maori and Pacific Islander backgrounds fit into all of this? They're kind of blackish. And there's a black guy runs a great restaurant down the road. He's Fijian, of Indian ancestry. Oh, differentiating by skin colour is just so stupid in a country like Australia. And then there's the teenagers I know who are descendants of a Tasmanian Aboriginal grandmother and an American negro sailor grandfather. (I make no apology for using the word negro. It's the word the kids use because that's what he was known as at the time, with no insult or offence involved.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew a guy who has Malaysian heritage, and when he tanned he literally became so dark people either didn't recognise him or misguessed his parent's nationality (I say this because he was born in Australia and is a full natural born citizen). The article title is ridiculous and I'm afraid that that this is one article that just inherently cannot be corrected. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per my comment above and agreeing with all of the other valid reasons for deletion that have been put forward. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever (few) bits of the article are relevant to African Australian. The article's title itself is problematic as there are no reliable, non-trivial sources to support it. The premise of the whole article is, in my opinion, rather offensive. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone else pointed out, unless you want this article to redirect to African Australian (leaving this problematic title a problem), you'd need to vote Delete rather than Merge. Correcting my own vote in accordance with that to make reaching consensus easier. Donama (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as numerous comments above, but if it is to be kept then rename to List of Australians of Black African descent. The intro section must go as it is false, and African Australian does not need a list appended to it. Sussexonian (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some people may consider "Black people in Australia" to include Aboriginals or even Pacific Islanders. as discussed above, it really is a loaded term that is not encyclopaedic and open to biased interpretation. LibStar (talk) 12:06, 19 February 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) 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Garland's ancestry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Judy Garland's ancestry

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

non-notable, original research. While Garland herself is notable, there has been little-to-no work in English, in reliable sources, that has taken any interest in her genealogy. The ancestry portion, when referenced, is only documenting generic facts about specific ancestors, and not the connection to Garland, and the synthesis and application of this to Garland would be OR by SYNTH. The self-identification portion might have salvageable material for the main Judy Garland page, but does not merit a page of its own. Agricolae (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. If a person's ancestry is the subject of feverish debate in reputable sources (sort of like the whole "was Jesus Christ black" thing), that's one thing - but I see nothing particularly notable about Ms. Garland's ancestry that cannot adequately be covered in the "early life" section of the actress's article. "Judy Garland was born on <date> to <father.name> and <mother.name>, both of whose familial lines can be traced back to the Mayflower <source>". There, everything worthy of mention is covered, without going into tedious, painstaking, pedantic genological detail as to her seventh cousin five times removed on her maternal grandmother's side. This is an encyclopedia, not a city hall. Badger Drink (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Judy Garland. The information is interesting enough, but not WP:Notable for its own article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an encyclopedia, not a genealogy reference. Dlabtot (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Her ancestry is not what made Judy Garland notable. Therefore her ancestry is NN. A few sentences might be added to her article as to her background (even with an external link as reference). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that while random articles on the ancestry of celebrities don't belong in Wikipedia, Judy Garland's has--for reasons entirely unclear to me--become a focus of scholars, fans, etc. Clarke, her leading biographer, for example, devotes an extraordinary amoung of time to her geneaology. An entire microindustry has developed around the alleged sexual orientation of her father, as well. I'm not certain that means this merits it's own article, but I do think that the unusual nature of and interest in this particular genealogy should at least be commented upon before we close this debate Vartanza (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at Clarke (or at least what I could see on Amazon), and I see no such extraordinary focus. He simply sets the stage, providing a brief context for his more extensive discussion of the immediate family - parents, aunts and uncles, and all in about one page out of 500. This is typical of most biographies. Yes, there is a school of genealogical hobbyists that trace all of the connections of anyone and everyone famous, resulting in such irrelevant nonsense as famous person X and famous person Y are 17th cousins three times removed, but there is nothing noteworthy or particularly reliable about such pursuits that merit a page. Agricolae (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTINHERITED. Warrah (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per kitfoxxe.Red Hurley (talk) 10:11, 20 February 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) 06:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isagani Abon[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist User234 (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and all of that. JBsupreme (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like an interesting young man. But I don't see the significant coverage in reliable sources needs to pass WP:MANOTE or WP:BIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:33, 17 February 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 to delete. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rapido Realismo Kali[edit]

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

Non-notable martial art User234 (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is one of a bazillion made up "martial arts". JBsupreme (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a reasonably well-known art as FMAs go. Sources include FMA Digest Vol 1. No. 3 and Vol. 3 No. 2 ([86]), with passing mentions in other issues. JJL (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see a lot of referring to a single source, namely a single issue of a relatively obscure publication. No question it exists, but I don't see where notability is being established. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, this is the author of the page(Am I allowed to share my thoughts here?). Rapido Realismo Kali is a not a made-up martial art. I gave citations and sources, everything that whoever's helping me edit was asking for. And the publication previously stated, the FMA Digest is very well-known in Filipino Martial Arts circles. Please look into it again and reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kali practitioner (talk • contribs) 09:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable third person information can be found I don't think using websites such as these [87] count as reliable sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:04, 23 February 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) 22:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OiTG.org[edit]

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

Non notable open source software. No indication of meeting notability guidelines. Google has less than 600 hits to oitg and most of them are to other organisations. Contested prod. noq (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article may not be notable, however it is a nice initiative in the open source community. I feel we should keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.41.29 (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, I did not find anything like it in open source community. This project is a pretty good start to provide an IT Governance platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.209.129 (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can the anon editors above give a reason other than WP:ILIKEIT why this article should remain? It is a fledging project that might in the future become notable but at this time is not. noq (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would add, the projects page on sourceforge was created in January 2010 and currently has no files to download. - It sounds like vapourware. noq (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting something like this reeks of the worst sort of unimaginative, uninitiated process-wonkery. It's not notable, it hasn't been released, two passing anons say the article should be kept because they really really have a deep spiritual attachment to the software it describes or whatever, and nobody - but nobody - else gives a damn enough to state the utterly obvious. It's not notable now because there is no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources as of now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete and good riddance! Badger Drink (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources proving notability of the subject. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I applaud nice initiatives in the open source community and use more than my share of them. Like this one, however, they're pretty much all non-notable, as the first anonymous contributor here concedes.--otherl left 21:55, 16 February 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 Boldly redirected NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert's Sydrome[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gilbert's Sydrome

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

Possible hoax, no refs, notability? iBen 02:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First, not spelt right in the article title. (not going to move, could complicated AFD) No sources, few hits that might be Reliable. Notability is hard to fully establish. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Gilbert's syndrome using ((R from misspelling)). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- I don't think there's even a need to delete the thing. I'm gunna go right ahead and do it now. Reyk _YO! 08:38, 14 February 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) 06:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Gorky[edit]

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

No assertion of notability RadManCF (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any major/reliable hits on google. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:BOLD (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 21:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bútora[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Has been unreferenced since December 2004. That's over six years. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not spend a few seconds clicking on the Google news search, before wasting all of our time sending it to the AFD? Dream Focus 15:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Tagged over a year ago for sources, but quite a few hits on google & google news. I think this meets rescue. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I have already found and included ~~one source, and am in the process of adding another~~ four sources. This person clearly meets our verifiability and notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 08:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I'll also add that there are oodles of news articles behind paywalls and in a language I assume to be Slovak, but I can't do anything with those because I'm a stingy bastard and I don't understand Slovak. Reyk _YO! 08:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times article proves the person is notable. Click on the Google news search above, and there plenty of articles about this guy. You can even alter the search to only list English results. [88] See how much press the guy gets? Dream Focus 15:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I am convince by now that this new editor is nominating possibly with good intentions but it comes out as bad faith. See this comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Kwok, which they started. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salama al-Khufaji, where one doubts whether the nominator understands the deletion process and the responsibilities it entails for nominators, such as WP:BEFORE. Really, the nominator should explain themselves. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any passing admin: please close this thing, per comments by the nominator on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birgitta Trotzig also. And if someone has a trout handy, please apply a firm b****slap to the nominator for wasting our time and claiming to have saved four BLPs. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — article is now in reasonable shape. Thanks to nom for bringing this to our attention. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - can we please close this immediately? The nominator is a sock on a breaching experiment involving nominating unreferenced BLPs for the sake of stirring up trouble. It's not worth dealing with the substance at this time. Obviously notable, no reasonable criteria for deletion per policy. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep: Nominating such an easily sourceable BLP for AfD shows that we have easily sourceable BLPs, but we already knew that.--Milowent (talk) 13:56, 15 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish numerals[edit]

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

This is a list of foreign language (Finnish) numbers. I believe WP:NUMBER applies, although perhaps it is less about the actual numbers than a language-based article. In any case the article does not in any way meet the notability for lists of numbers under WP:NUMBER, which restricts notability to just two lists. If this is simply a language article, it is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and not an online language course Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTHOWTO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not an article about number per se so WP:NUMBER is not really relevent. It is an article related to the Finnish language and is included here because it is a part of Finnish Grammar. All Finnish grammar books have a section on the treatment of numerals and Finnish numerals can be quite challenging becuase of the multiplicity of case forms, the difference between the words as they are uttered when read and when spoken in normal speech. Also the fact that Finnish numerals have a "name" that is not the same as the number itself. The article should be linked primarily to the Finnish Grammar article as it really is a stub from there. If we are allowed a Finnish grammar article then we should have a Finnish numerals article as it is highly related. I will put cross references to the articles and seek comments about this Afd there. Please do not delete the article until there has been time for people there to see the article and comment on this Afd suggestion.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Thanks. It will be interesting to see what you do with the article! Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To: Wikipeterproject. If you object so strongly to the Finnish numerals article, can I ask why you have not also raised the same issue at English numerals?--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have separate articles about the number words in many different languages, as it's an important part of vocabulary and grammar in any language. The articles aren't there for every language, but the ones that exist not only include major world languages (English, Chinese) and languages of scholarly interest (Proto-Indo-European, Etruscan), but even a few living languages with no more significance than Finnish (Armenian, Welsh, Chuvash). The article's tone is too much like a how-to guide, but that's easily fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wiktionary has several appendices on numeral systems in various languages, that are much like this article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree that this is not a WP:NUMBER issue. But to keep, the notability of the topic must be determined. That other, similar articles exist is not relevant in itself (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Neither are arguments that it's useful information. Notability is determined by "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This article has no references at all. If the article doesn't get some references (and perhaps trimmed back to just reflect those references) WP:NOTGUIDE definately applies. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's silly to apply WP:NUMBER to this. This is not an article about a number. It's an article about one aspect of the Finnish language. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Agreed. See above, I conceded that point, but what about WP:NOTGUIDE? My point with nominating this for deletion was a question of notability. i still don't think the article meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia. none of the keep arguments here really address that. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems similar to the view that the ONLY reason to learn a foreign language is to use it as a means of communicating. If that were true, then maybe "NOTAGUIDE" would apply. But suppose one wished to understand one particular aspect of the way in which the Finno-Ugric languages evolved. Maybe things like that are closer to the reason why people reader articles on particular languages. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's a good point. If one were looking for that sort of information, one would not find it in this article. The article is essentially a user guide and doesn't provide the information you refer to. I would expect that information to be included in an article about the Finnish language or Finnish grammar or even in a stand-alone article about the evolution of the Finnish language, if it's a notable enough topic. A long article about how to grammar applies to numbers is a user guide. Moreover, the lack of sources seems to indicate that it's also not notable. I suspect it would be much easier to find sources about the evolution of Finnish or even about how the number system works and where it comes from - perhaps that's notable. The existence of numbers in Finnish and the fact that Finnish grammar applies to them isn't notable and the difficulty in finding references seems to confirm this. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it doesn't provide that information? It doesn't explicitly give that information to people not acquainted with that subject area, but one who knows something about that broader problem but is not acquainted with the information that is in this article would probably find it relevant. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michael Hardy or Merge into Numeral system. Doc Quintana (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I looked (not recently.....) numeral system was mathematical, whereas this is a language article. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

....OK, I've glanced at numeral system again, and that still seems to apply. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numerals are numerals. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourced, well written, consistent with other articles in Category:Numerals. WP:NUMBER obviously does not apply. No reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Well sourced? There are no inline citations and the three "references" are grammatical user guides, which makes the article suspect under WP:NOTGUIDE. The existence of Finnish grammar doesn't make it notable. I don't think the sources establish notability at all. Also the existence of other, similar articles is not a valid argument to keep this one. Besides, many of the other articles are actually about numerals (Roman, chinese, etc). This one is about language and is very much in the style (and content) of an extensive user guide. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Citation style is irrelevant for AfD discussion. Coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes notability of topic - no reason to arbitrarily exclude grammars from this benchmark - do we exclude textbooks from reliable sources ? Welsh numerals is a comparable lingusitic article. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contra to Doc Quintana, this article is not about a relatively universal, or at least relatively language-independent system for written notation of numbers. It is about the grammar of referring to cardinal and ordinal numbers is spoken Finnish. That is why references to grammars of Finnish (not dictionaries, note) are appropriate as references. Grammar is a proper subject for Wikipedia — see for example Portal:Linguistics, WP:WikiProject Languages, or WP:Requested articles/Social sciences#Linguistics. Cnilep (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Oh, and I should have added that the length of Finnish grammar makes merger there inappropriate. I have, however, added a ((main)) tag there linking to Finnish numerals. Cnilep (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: WP:NUMBER does not apply; numerals are not numbers and this is more about linguistics than math. There are similar articles for other languages but coverage is uneven, e.g. French numerals are covered in a section of French language and there doesn't seem to be any coverage of German numerals at all. Whether the article is well sourced is not the issue but rather whether it can be sourced, though it's always preferred that article's creator include sources so the issue doesn't come up. The real issue is notability, but I don't think that can be questioned, go to any bookstore and pick up a generic Finnish language book and numerals will be covered in lesson 4 (approx.). If this was some obscure language that was only spoken by 1000 people then notability would be an issue, but this is a relatively major language and the numeral system is a vital part of it. My only reservation is that the article seems too detailed and raises WP:NOTTEXTBOOK issues. Perhaps the subject is complex enough that this level of detail is needed for proper coverage, but as long as the material is about the subject and does not attempt to teach people how to speak Finnish (which should be included in WikiBooks) I'm OK with it.--RDBury (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Numerals is a word class that exists in Finish, and as such the article has a legitimate topic for a lexicon entry. We have articles on other word classes, e.g. Latin conjugation (redirects from Latin verbs), German nouns etc. These articles tend to be abused by being filled up with declination tables and so on, while the relevant topic would be a systematic discussion of their grammatical and diachronic properties (instead of an extensive listing). So most of the info that the article under discussion here contains is also unnecessary. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Just because other stuff exists, does not mean that this subject is notable. To be notable, the subject needs secondary sources that are independent and verifiable. This one has none (other than references to dictionaries or user guides). Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply We are talking about the numeral system of a major member of the Finno-Ugric languages! Without doing any search, I would immediately be convinced that there is a lot of stuff (probably much of it old, as Finno-Ugric was already quite well-known 80 years ago) on such a topic. Only to think of the stuff that you can do with numerals from a historical perspective (and no doubt this has been done here)! But to name two more recent essays:
    - Schellbach-Kopra, Ingrid: Zahlwort und Phraseologie am Beispiel des Finnischen. In: Sprachen in Finnland und Estland / Hrsg. von Pekka Lehtimäki. Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz, 1999: 79-96.
    - Dolbey, Andy: Constructional inheritance and case assignment in Finnish numeral expressions. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 21/1: 1998, 17-45.
  - Little of what I expect to be mentioned in these articles is addressed in the article in its current form, but that does not change that the topic is quite notable. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I think that the lack of inline citations is telling. If one were to make an attempt at including them, one would quickly have to conclude that the whole article is nothing more than a user guide. It's not actually talking about the language at all, just explaining how to use it. Big difference. Suspect that the whole topic could be included in Finnish grammar in just a short paragraph. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI there was no mention of numerals in the Finnish grammar article but there was a request for inclusion on the talk page. Because the article is already long and the material cannot be dealt with briefly I created this article - only I forgot to add the link to the new article. Thanks to you I have now done so. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For many articles inline cites aren't really necessary since the information can be found in a single section of the source. Admittedly the article will never reach FA class in that state but that's not the issue here. This should only be a concern for AfD if the connection between the source and the material is unclear, for example listing Calculus Made Easy as a reference for "Noncommutative Romberg integration".--RDBury (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know how stable URLs are for google book searches, but I'll try it: this is a section on numerals on page 129 of Finnish: an essential grammar by Fred Karlsson. this has some remarks on Finnish in a book on evolution of numeral systems in languages generally. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: That (the second one) is a good reference. If the article stays, I think the "user guide" content ought to be replaced with this type of discussion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RDBury. Could also merge to Finnish language (like the French language article), but it's not a matter of deletion. Also, there references cleary indicate that there are entire book chapters about this. Inline references aren't needed for an article which merely summarized 1-2 such references; see WP:CITE#General reference. Asking for an article to be delete on these grounds is ridiculous. Pcap ping 21:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

**Response. You haven't provided a reason why it should stay. May I ask why you think so? Didn't see your "as per". Sorry! Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - WP:BLUDGEON. Pcap ping 21:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response: Big difference between bludgeoning and discussing. But not the forum to defend myself here. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 21:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason I can see to delete this article on a significant aspect of the Finnish language. Articles on languages are fully encyclopedic, both in the traditional sense and in the sense of Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have a concensus to retain the article. Can the AfD now be formally withdrawn?--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I support the withdrawl. I think there is consensus here. Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a copy of this should be placed on Wiktionary, even if it is kept as an article (and this result has happened in the past, where a copy is placed on Wiktionary without deleting the article off Wikipedia) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:38, 19 February 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) 06:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BobChatter[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 01:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find independent coverage either. Pcap ping 21:55, 18 February 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) 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renesmee Carlie Cullen (Nessie)[edit]

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

Not a notable enough character outside the series. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 23:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate list of sparkly characters. Edward321 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See List of Twilight characters#Renesmee Cullen ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 02:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is entirely entirely in-universe, and the subsection in List of Twilight characters already covers the character's in-universe background adequately, so there's nothing here worth merging. It's also an implausible search term for a redirect. Frickative 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible merge: List of Twilight characters#Renesmee Cullen appears to cover the character pretty adequately, though it might be worth merging the "Renesmee is depicted as being very beautiful..." paragraph - I don't know how notable that is. The rest of it is really just duplication. -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicative, no secondary sources, and tons of original research in violation of WP:PLOT. Title is ridiculous, and should not even be a redirect. Abductive (reasoning) 07:32, 23 February 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 single Irish Times review does not show "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" , as is eloquently explained by Wikipeterproject Kevin (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Agee[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline speedy (no assertion of notability). I don't think that authoring books is a de facto claim to notability. Pburka (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Delete~~. Additional reference in discussion below make me convinced of "keep". However, contrary to Pburka, there is a definite claim of notability in his 3 poetry books. They simply fall below a sufficiently wide reception (at least as evidenced) to warrant a keep. LotLE×talk 08:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per anthology, and review in Irish Times, (article much improved since nomination.) Pohick2 (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One source with significant coverage doesn't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - comment (i found 1 source); anthology? Pohick2 (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An entry in the International Who's Who in Poetry and Poets' Encyclopaedia (p. 6, see Google Books) should be sufficient for inclusion, in my opinion. It is possible to find more: [89], [90], [91]. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a poet, WP:CREATIVE applies. The rather stringent notability requirements for creative professionals, including poets, requires that the individual is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors", "has 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" or "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention..." The provided references do not support this in any way. Biographies on publishers' websites are not independent, the newspaper articles do not really reference or cite his work and blogspots are generally considered trivial sources. There is no evidence that Agee is widely cited by peers or successors. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipeterproject. JBsupreme (talk) 19:56, 17 February 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) 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The eBossWatch Worst Bosses List[edit]

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

Contested prod. Promotional article for a HR startup that's seeking publicity by producing a list of the worst bosses in the world. Nice idea, if a bit grandiose, but the first list was only in December 2009 and the world is not leaping up and down with excitement. It seems to have lots of ghits but when you take away twitter, facebook, blogs and all the rest there are very few that are relevant (see here). Fails WP:SPAM, WP:N andy (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, but the mainstream media (e.g. reliable sources) seems to have been leaping up and down with excitement about this newsworthy item, despite the fact that the 2009 list was the organization's first. This is probably due to the fact that this list made history by being the first list ever to actually name the "worst bosses" in a serious and professional manner.

The following is a list of reliable sources ("mainstream news organizations") that have covered and featured The Worst Bosses List and that relate directly to the subject of the article:

KOVR CBS 13 News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KOVR) http://cbs13.com/video/?id=64758@kovr.dayport.com
KMGH ABC 7 News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMGH-TV) http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/21966233/detail.html
Tulsa World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_World) http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=46&articleid=20091213_46_E1_Youmig111919
The Oakland Tribune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oakland_Tribune) http://www.insidebayarea.com/oakland/ci_13954503
KCRA-TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCRA_3) http://www.kcra.com/news/21914330/detail.html
KGO AM 810 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGO_(AM)) http://www.kgoam810.com/Article.asp?id=1620682&spid=20399
KFBK AM 1530 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KFBK) http://www.kfbk.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=172730&article=6457286 Abbashele (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:N states that "...it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability" and also that "...not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources" (my emphasis). Given the nature of the press material that eBossWatch pushes out it would be surprising if local news media did not run stories. But that alone is not sufficient for notability. andy (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Not notable, most coverage of this site is through recycled PRWEB press releases. I do not believe that EBossWatch should merit an article either. Shritwod (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The existence of press releases is irrelevant in determining whether a topic merits its own article. Wikipedia states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." There are seven "reliable sources" listed above that have featured this topic. Because this topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," it has clearly satisified Wikipedia's notability inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Abbashele (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is your site, I take it? Therefore WP:COI and other guidelines apply. I can see exactly one syndicated story in Google news during 2009 about the whole site. Not notable enough to be mentioned here when several hundred thousand more notable sites are also not listed. Shritwod (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:COI: "Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this. During debates on articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage." Wikipedia notability guidelines do not state that the "level of notability" of articles should be judged against those of other articles (an exercise that would be extremely subjective). Furthermore, I fail to understand the logic of your argument. I don't see any reason why there should be a certain order that new article submissions should follow. Each article/topic should be judged by itself to see if it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which this article clearly meets for reasons that I mentioned above).Abbashele (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only based on notability, but BLP concerns. Whatever these people did to be named a 'worst boss', it doesn't really assert that they deserved it unless they went through a legal due process and could be completely made up. As for the references above, they didn't lead the news, they were just talked about in short bursts to fill an empty one-minute timeslot and get in a happy talk one liner, hardly sealing notability. Nate • (chatter) 13:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Keep'~~ As the article states, a panel of nationally-recognized workplace experts selected and ranked the "worst bosses," so it's hardly likely that the list is "completely made up," as you suggested. Furthermore, a quick review of the list reveals that the vast majority of the "worst bosses" have been taken to court by the EEOC or by current or former employees. Abbashele (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The etiquette is only one "vote" per debate (not that it's really a vote anyway) so there's no need to keep saying Keep. Nate makes a very good point about WP:BLP - this article is linking to potentially libellous statements made by a third party. If any one of the "worst bosses" decides to sue wikipedia it could be awkward and embarrassing. WP:BLP makes it clear that the article should contain links to reliable sources - and I don't mean eBossWatch itself but the EEOC cases etc. andy (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this list lacks any coverage from sources that are independent of the HR company itself. Press releases and other routine coverage are not evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the notability criteria of WP:WEB, which sets out what is needed for a website to be considered notable. In short, the policy requires the website's content to have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..." the policy specifically mentions that press releases, advertising and newspaper articles that merely mention the website are not considered "non-trivial". Social networking sites and blogs are not "published works". If the website hasn't been subject of such published works, it can still be notable if it a) has won a notable award or b) it is distributed by a respected, independent medium independent of its creators. Social networking sites and blogs are specifically excluded from the last criteria. This website does not pass any of the three notability limbs of WP:WEB.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Byxnet[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability of the network. Citations are to primary sources directly connected with the network, or to third party IRC information site that do not establish notability. As far as IRC networks go, Byxnet is tiny. While this alone is not reason for deletion, it is evidence of lack of importance. Vertigo Acid (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find much if any coverage about this IRC network. It might be popular in some circles, but that's going to be hard to document properly. Pcap ping 10:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this IRC network. Joe Chill (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N. _noisy jinx ^huh? 02:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Rouget[edit]

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

Article has no content other than infobox. RadManCF (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly notable horse trainer and jockey. I added some references. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expanded. Extensive and long-ranging neutral media coverage. It's just too basic atm. _noisy jinx ^huh? —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Meets the notability requirements of a professional sportsperson in that he has performed professionally at the highest level of his sport. The article obviously needs quite a bit of work, but that doesn't detract from the trainer's notability Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But it would be wonderful if somebody who knew something about the subject were to expand the article Vartanza (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:WEB. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.woodworking[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines. All of the sources are primary, written by members of the group. It's been tagged for cleanup for some time, with no effort by interested parties to bring it up to standards with verifiable, secondary sources. Vertigo Acid (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable sources demonstrate the notability of this venerable newsgroup. Simply click on the news and books links above. Articles shouldn't be deleted if they can be improved. Pburka (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are only 33 news article spanned over 15 years in the link you mentioned! Even without an analysis of whether the stories are substantial and non-trivial the number is remarkably small. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability of this newsgroup per WP:WEB is not clear to me. Most of the news hits require payment to view, and many of the books hits are basically listings of this newsgroup in Usenet directories. However, it may be possible for someone to establish this newsgroup's notability; if a better case is made, I may reconsider my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Their FAQ (archive) has been recommended in this book. When a Usenet forum produces a FAQ that ends up being considered reliable by print sources, it should probably have an article here. Also covered at some length here so it meets the letter of WP:GNG as well. Pcap ping 07:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a book that is essentially a long list of recommended URLs any better than an online source of recommended information? Because someone paid more to have it published than they would to put a webpage online? Regarding the second book... so because Doug Stowe happens to participate in this newsgroup, it becomes notable? I realize notability is not a core WP principle like verifiability. Those sources are great for verifying, but not for establishing notability. Vertigo Acid (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-notabiltiy does not mean that some Wikipedian thinks a topic is important. Conversely, a topic judged as unimportant by some Wikipedian does not become non-notable. See WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:JNN. This is a woodworking newsgroup, so if reliable sources about woodworking think it's notable enough to give it some coverage, then so should we. There's more coverage that what I've linked above, e.g. [92] [93] [94], etc. (For the same type of reasoning, the forum you probably know about, HardOCP, is wiki-notable because it has similar coverage in the computer press [95] [96], etc.) Pcap ping 09:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the only notability of HardOCP were trivial coverage in books about it being a good hardware website, I'd be calling for an AfD of it as well, regardless of my personal involvement. The sources provided thus far only verify that Rec.woodworking exists, which is not in question. What is the significance of Rec.woodworking? Thus far, they all clearly fall under WP:WEB criteria 1b - Trivial coverage, and do not establish notability. Vertigo Acid (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "rec.woodworking" News archives search shows a bunch of newspaper references, peaking in 1998. The Greensboro News and Record, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Dayton Daily News all wrote stories about it. Looks notable enough to me based on that; if the article needs to be improved, that's a WP:BETTER argument and not a reason to delete. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The newspaper articles cited above (which I've checked using LexisNexis) are by a single syndicated columnist, Jack Warner, and are mostly along the lines of "Someone on rec.woodworking asked about [woodworking topic]. Here's a column on [woodworking topic]." I thought Warner's 1998 article on "Woodworking and the Internet" might help here, but it turns out to be just instructions on how to read newsgroups. I can't find any news coverage of the group as an object of interest in itself. EALacey (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the notability criteria of WP:WEB, which sets out what is needed for a website to be considered notable. In short, the policy requires the website's content to have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..." the policy specifically mentions that press releases, advertising and newspaper articles that merely mention the website are not considered "non-trivial". Social networking sites and blogs are not "published works". If the website hasn't been subject of such published works, it can still be notable if it a) has won a notable award or b) it is distributed by a respected, independent medium independent of its creators. Social networking sites and blogs are specifically excluded from the last criteria. This website does not pass any of the three notability limbs of WP:WEB. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:19, 15 February 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 Miss Earth Florida. Kevin (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Piwko[edit]

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

After cleanup, it has become clear to me that this person does not warrant her own article. The only hit in Google News is an article from 2007 in the Miami Herald, long before the pageant. All the references in the article (study the history to see previous incomplete and unreliable references--incl. those to the pageant company, which aren't reliable and don't help establish notability) are of highly questionable authority. Now, the pageant itself is under discussion at AfD, and it's leaning toward a redirect--in other words, I don't see any notability being inherited here, since her one claim to fame is about to lose its independently notable status. In short, I submit that her title is not enough to qualify her, and that there is not enough reliable coverage of her (click here to see her--but she don't look like her)--I can't even verify that she graduated from FIU, or that she was born when the article says she was born. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Miss Earth Florida. Her only claim to notability is as winner of a pageant of questionable notability. Of course the redirect wouldn't make sense if the pageant article is also deleted. Pburka (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 14 February 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) 22:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kausar Mahmood[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO.

The only thing that could be notable about Dr. Kausar Mahmood is that he is a dental surgeon at Margalla Institute of Health Sciences [97]. Other than that, Dr. Mahmood himself has said that poetry is one of his hobbies [98].

Dr. Mahmood does not meet the biography criterion for either his work as a dental surgeon (no secondary coverage, no notable award, has not originated "a significant new concept, theory or technique", etc.) or his works in poetry [99] (same reasons). « D. Trebbien (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found to indicate notability, and the article doesn't really claim any.--Michig (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Can't find any reliable sources or coverage, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:54, 17 February 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) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Michael Pemulis[edit]

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

This article is about a musician with no reliable sources to support verifiability or establish notability. I am unable to find any substantial writeup of the artist. There are mentions such as [100], and [101]. He has performed based on info like [102], and his album was advertised [103]. But there's nothing written about him. And nothing that cane verify most of this article. Whpq (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find reliable sources. What I found relates to the fictional character by the same name. Perhaps someone with more expertise can source this article. Racepacket (talk) 19:18, 14 February 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) 22:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Pharaohs[edit]

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

Unreferenced and indiscriminate list of characters. Except for two of them, they have don't even have links here. The two that are linked, have no articles: a dab and a link to a video game. Pcap ping 13:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay. Could be an encyclopedic topic, but it's so far from that right now that it's better to start over from scratch. If someone is seriously interested in adopting it and cleaning it up, it can be userfied in the interim. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with the nominator that this list is unreferenced and unsourced, and also I think a list of fictional pharaohs isn't even needed, because I think all there is to these characters is the fact that they're pharaohs, there's nothing singularly notable about any one of them. JIP | Talk 19:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no sillier than any other lists of fictional elements (swords, vehicles, etc.) which have been kept at AfD. Cleanup is always good. Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't nominate it because it's silly, but because it's unsourced and entirely composed of characters that don't have their own articles. Pcap ping 13:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pharaoh, as a section "Pharaohs in fiction" 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
cmt: Das Baz, the article creator, has left a highly convincing, well-thought-out keep rationale at his talk page. Apparently "it's fun" is now a reason not to delete an article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although this is not the most elegant of lists, it certainly can be improved with sourcing. I quickly found two and added them. As for entries not having their own articles, that's not a requirement, as long as they are sourced and in the context of the list subject. Most bibliography entries don't have their own articles so we shouldn't be creating double standards.--Mike Cline (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the collection of fictional Pharoahs itself isn't notable, as there is no encyclopedic tie-in between all of the different fictional stories that have a character called a Pharaoh. I haven't found any reliable sources that mention more than one of the given pharaohs on the list together. We shouldn't compile lists that haven't already been compiled in the past. Them From Space 05:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list of insignificant, non-notable characters. If they were all notable and covered by separate articles, then I would take the opposite view. Racepacket (talk) 19:10, 14 February 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) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Faguet[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur; article by single-issue user. Sources given are not about this person, but about the company he founded. I have been unable to find any significant coverage of this person. Haakon (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and merge these few sentences into TokBox. His company/product is notable; he is not. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 14 February 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) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bura[edit]

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

This seems like an advertisement for his company "Roofray". Though he one top 100 websites from Entrepreneur Magazine, I'm really not sure that this is enough to determine notability. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever. Cannot find any reliable secondary sources that discuss the individual, his work or his achievements. Being quoted as a company spokesperson or mentioned in an article essentially not about the individual is in no way enough to establish notability. Even if the company the individual is associated with is notable, notability is not inherited. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:32, 15 February 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Cocaine[edit]

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

Interestingly has 31 tracks in a 50 minute album. But fails WP:NALBUMS. No evidence that the release charted anywhere found at Allmusic or Billboard. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Article references a one paragraph review and the bands own website as the only sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I couldn't find significant coverage beyond the Allmusic review, I think keeping this is better for the project than deleting or redirecting it.--Michig (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it contains encyclopedic information. All of the Dwarves albums will have been reviewed in multiple music papers and magazines, most of which are not available online. Deleting this article will not improve the encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Bacause it contains encyclopedic information" is saying precisely nothing, because that is the question we are trying to resolve here - similarly "Deleting this article will not improve the encyclopedia". What we need here is evidence of notability, and Wikpedia does not insist on online references, so if you can provide actual details of the reviews in "multiple music papers and magazines" that you say exist, that would be a great help -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the print reviews. The band is notable, the album has been reviewed in reliable sources. Deletion isn't going to help this project. Notability guidelines are there to provide a rule of thumb (and in this case they don't indicate that this should be deleted), but we should be able to think beyond them and give consideration to the best outcome for the project. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply fails WP:NALBUMS Alan - talk 18:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - An album does not have to reach the charts to be notable - those are two different discussions. Per WP:NALBUMS, an album can be considered notable if it appeared on a chart, but that does not automatically imply that an album is not notable because it did not appear on a chart. I also do not believe that an AllMusic review is non-significant just because it is short in length. Given the notability of the band, WP: ALBUMS allows the assumption that their albums are inherently notable. However, my vote here is "Weak Keep" because after some investigation it appears that this album is one of those quickie compilations tossed out by a record company without much cooperation from the band or notice from fans and collectors. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As Doomsdayer points out, charting is not a requirement for album notability (it is not even part of the WP:NALBUMS criteria). This album has an allmusic review (whose significance I disagree with the nominator on) and apparently coverage in a book. So it may meet notability. But if not, a merge or redirect to Dwarves (band) would be more appropriate under WP:NALBUMS than deletion. Rlendog (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh....if I had listed "not charting" as the sole reason, I could understand why you two are making that an issue. But that wasn't the sole reason listed. I understand that you see the one paragraph pro-forma review as significant. I don't. We can disagree and that is what these discussions are for. Also, I offered to withdraw the nom if Michig wanted to redirect the article. He refused. So please let's not act like I came in here with one reason and refused to consider compromise. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of this album in the book listed as a source appears to be no more than inclusion in a list (at least as far as I can tell from the limited Google Books preview), so that does not seem like significant coverage. Which makes me lean towards redirect - I am not entirely convinced that it shouldn't be kept since the allmusic review does have some substance, even though it is pretty short, but I'd like to see some additional substantive coverage somewhere. Rlendog (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS Dlabtot (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album by notable band, reviewed by an independent reliable source. Hekerui (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we saw the one paragraph review. Where is the significant coverage? Or are we still trying to claim that a single paragraph on a website amounts to significant coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be condescending, I just gave my reason. The band is notable, which is a good argument to keep an album proper by them, and a compilation that shows their development and is intended to do just that fits in there. It has had a review that is sustantive and non-trivial and is mentioned in the book by Strong. I have not searched for more material for expansion but if this is what you want then make an effort. Hekerui (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't condscending. Yes, it is mentioned in a book.....in a list. That's all. It is on a list in a book of lists. That sounds pretty trivial. For an album that is allegedly notable, there seems to be a lack of signifcant coverage. And whether the single paragraph is "significant", the fact that there is only that kind of makes the notability questionable. Why wouldn't a redirect to the band be an option? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what you proposed, and it can't be proposed using a deletion discussion. A redirect would also remove the valuable content of the page. Hekerui (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to be the one to propose it. User:Rlendog did propose redirect. I said before that I'd withdraw the AfD if it was redirected. If it were merged and redirected, what would be lost? A track list? Because that's all this article really is....nothing more than a track list. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NALBUMS. JBsupreme (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dwarves (band)#Discography. - This is a compilation album with no significant coverage in mulitple reliable sources. There is no reason for a standalone article. Being an album from a notable band would be a stronger argument if it weren't just a compilation album. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 18 February 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) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical Investigations (wiki)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable website, trivial mention in the Times Higher Education Supplement doesn't establish notability, and a search - a bit difficult given Wittgenstein :-) - turns up virtually nothing, ie I found one mention on a list of websites. [104]. Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. Article might have been created because of this page [105]. Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely non-notable wiki with around 5 users. Barely edited, and no claims of notability. How did this last so long? Canterbury Tail talk 14:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep But suit yourselves! Yes, it was this wiki that highlighted the glaciation fraud first. See: http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/Himalayas

and

"2009-12-20 03:39:09 Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting

[WWW]http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting

According to a report in the journal Science, “several Western experts who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced analysis—even if it clashes with IPCC's take on the Himalayas.” The “extremely provocative” findings “are consistent with what I have learned independently,” says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram Mountains, on the border of India and Pakistan, have “stabilized or undergone an aggressive advance,” he says, citing new evidence gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist at the University of Nebraska.

Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat. Such evidence “challenges the view that the upper Indus glaciers are ‘disappearing’ quickly and will be gone in 30 years,” said Hewitt. “There is no evidence to support this view and, indeed, rates of retreat have been less in the past 30 years than the previous 60 years.”

Other researchers and noted experts have raised their voices in support of Raina's conclusions. According to Himalayan glacier specialist John “Jack” Shroder, the only possible conclusion is that IPCC's Himalaya assessment got it “horribly wrong.” The University of Nebraska researcher adds, “They were too quick to jump to conclusions on too little data —PerigGouanvic"

These deletionists are part of the 'Global Warming users group'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemtpm (talk • contribs) 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you have the wrong page, we are discussing what is clearly a non-notable website, and although the article may have been created simply to forward your point of view, if it is deleted it will have nothing to do with that and everything to do with our guidelines on notability. Dougweller (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your edit summary, "We know where you live!", a phrase that is normally used as a threat. Please explain what you meant. Dougweller (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for God's sakes, don't turn this into a soapbox. This makes some of the less vocal skeptics (including myself) look bad. Also, delete per above.--WaltCip (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficiently notable Wiki. AllyD (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the notability criteria of WP:WEB, which sets out what is needed for a website to be considered notable. In short, the policy requires the website's content to have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..." The policy specifically mentions that press releases, advertising and newspaper articles that merely mention the website are not considered "non-trivial". Social networking sites and blogs are not "published works". If the website hasn't been subject of such published works, it can still be notable if it a) has won a notable award or b) it is distributed by a respected, independent medium independent of its creators. Social networking sites and blogs are specifically excluded from the last criteria. This website does not pass come close to meeting any of the three notability limbs of WP:WEB. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Pcap ping 21:54, 15 February 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) 06:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Carlo Play[edit]

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

This seems to fail GNG, and WP:NOT. RadManCF (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable ttonyb (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:54, 14 February 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) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MPC Sports Worldwide[edit]

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

Fails NOTDIR Criteria, no sources, when checking sources: google shows nothing when you filter out all the blogs, directories, facebook, etc. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 03:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find significant coverage, 254 hits on Google and the second sentence in the article is spam. 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that last comment was mine (added an extra tilde :P) fetchcomms☛ 04:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. No claim to notability, no evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:25, 15 February 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) 06:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Home Economics[edit]

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

Written like an essay, and seems to be promotional. Also tagged for COI concerns. RadManCF (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Promotional piece lacking notability. ttonyb (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional, non-notable and the article was originally created by someone with a username suspiciously close to the name of the author who 'coined the term'. WP:COI! Addionne (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability, and no realistic ability to do so well. All of 12 Ghits. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 16 February 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. No arguments made that refute the nomination. Kevin (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badr Eddine Sayegh[edit]

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

No references. I cannot find any ghits for this person as a journalist or presenter. Contested PROD. Clubmarx (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Clubmarx (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 14 February 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicklas Söderblom[edit]

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

An article about a personal trainer, actor, author, who has dated a famous person. I don't believe he meets any of the criteria in WP:BIO:

acting: he's been a bit part actor in a handful of tv show episodes
general celebrity: he's been interviewed a few times, including on the Tony Danza show; this doesn't seem at all enough to confer notability
dating: he was engaged to actress Nicollette Sheridan, but as Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED notes, notability isn't inherited
writing: apparently he wrote a book, but I can't find it (or him) in online booksellers like Amazon and Barnes and Noble
personal trainer: the article claims, but doesn't ref, that he's trained lots of famous people. I can't find a reliable source to back this up at all

So I don't believe that all of the above, when taken as a whole, shows that he's at all notable. Pretty much the only decently-refed thing about him is that he dated Sheridan, which is already in her article.

Note that the article was created by now-blocked user:Judo112, a sock of another account with a poor track record on BLPs. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTINHERITED. Minor acting role isn't sufficient, and neither is non-notable book authorship. The article mostly rests on him having dated a notable actor, which is neither here nor there. LotLE×talk 08:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in reliable sources over a 5-year period [106]. While yes, a lot of it refers to his failed relationship with Sheridan, the coverage is his and not hers, so the notability is not an inherited one. The BLP and Wikipedia will benefit from the article's expansion and better use of available sources... but not from deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. If I had to take a guess, I guess I'd say this is non-notable, but I cannot read the sources cited by Michael Q Schmidt. It would be helpful if someone who speaks the language could comment on their veracity. JBsupreme (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto (rapper)[edit]

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

non-notable artist Rapido (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Performed as part of BBC's Electric Proms, some coverage already in the article, and more out there. e.g. this.--Michig (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article would have to be rewritten in some way as parts of it sound just like coming directly out of a press kit. Sort of meets WP:N, but only just. _noisy jinx ^huh? 02:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not released an album, although he is working on one. Only a significant review from an established secondary source would save this article. Racepacket (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, simply because the nominator did not make their case. -- œ^™ 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I think you didn't make your case according to WP:JNN, which is nothing to do with the nominator reason for deletion, but is everything to do with the follow up contributors' votes. Rapido (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hes famous! difficulties in obtaining sources probably due to "ghetto" being an ambiguous search term. more information on the artist available on his myspace http://www.myspace.com/ghettomc and via the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/introducing/artists/ghetto/ his releases "top 3 selected" and "sing for me" made regular appearances on radio and TV and his forthcoming album release likely to significantly increase his profile. Recently shortened his stage name of "ghetto" to "Ghetts" so the article could possibly be retitled accordingly —Preceding unsigned comment added by D4v3tr0 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep but perhaps a name change, if he is going by Ghetts now then it would be helpful to rename the page accordingly. Volbeatfan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 20 February 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) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Federer Grand Slam statistics[edit]

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

This is a copy-pasted fork of Roger Federer career statistics. I don't know if there's some consensus on whether this type of forking is appropriate, but it seems excessive. The information's duplicated in the career stats article, and I don't think that article's suffering from size problems, especially given how well it's organized. I worry about the idea of split off stats for every tournament. Shadowjams (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two separate articles for Roger Federer's career stats? That's unneccessary. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the new article for the statistics because the original one was way too large. So the idea was to split it, i.e. the statistics of the Grand Slams on one side and then the others. It sill needs a lot of work, but is a start. The table of all the matches of Federer in Grand Slams is too big to be included in the original statistics article. That is why I removed it from that article to create a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanguito Wiki (talk • contribs) 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would assume that this article was created on account of the stats page being 124kb - and thus the edit page says that we're to consider splitting it into sub-pages due to Wp:SIZE (which is just a guideline and not a policy). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that it's a large stat page, and that's obviously the motivation, but the kb size metric is misleading since there's a lot of markup on that page. In terms of finding the relevant information it's a lot more convenient to use the TOC at the top and have all of the information in one place. Otherwise I think the natural conclusion on this page is to split every major tournament out to its own, at which point it's well beyond FORK guidelines. But like I said, I'm not sure on consensus, so I brought it here. Shadowjams (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Eagles247 _noisy jinx ^huh? 02:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hussar. Or to another appropriate article. Sandstein 07:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gusar light cavalry[edit]

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

Article discusses the development of hussars in the mediaeval Serbian military. With no reliable sources (one of the two references is self-published, and the other is a wargaming website) there's nothing in this article that belongs in Wikipedia. Under normal conditions, I'd simply redirect this to "hussar", but it's an unlikely redirect — substituting "G" for "H" is likely the result of transliteration between the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets [q.v. the Russian article on ru:О. Генри, which transliterates to "O. Genry" rather than O. Henry] and thus not likely to be a plausible redirect. Nyttend (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see here, here, and here. The first source, in particular, indicates that the term "gusar" took on a special nuance. To me it looks like a merge/redirect would probably be the best outcome, though whether to Hussar or to a particular national article I can't say. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge .Just needs some love and care to be added to other article!!!...They a very well known... most would call them by there later name hussars (Husar, or гусар, Gusar).. /hʊˈzɑr/; also spelling pronunciation /həˈsɑr/) is from the Hungarian huszár. This word originates from the Serbian husar or gusar, meaning pirate, derived from the Medieval Latin cursarius (cf. the English word corsair)^{Webster's Third New International. Hussar. isbn 0-85229-503-0 . Page 1105}[107] [108] [109]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Already two delete votes, so the second relist was not necessary JForget 01:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Musca (window manager)[edit]

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

I cannot find significant independent coverage for this software. Deleted as prod but restored as contested without adding any sources. Pcap ping 15:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find in Google is unreliable sites and download sites. I found zero sources in Google News. I found zero sources in Google Books. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: The proposed deletion process foresees the restoration if requested if reqiested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion as in this case. It is not a requirement that the restoring admin adds sources as the nomination seems to imply, and the article creator did not have much time till the Afd.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not mean to imply that; "without adding any sources" was referring to the editor that contested the prod, not the admin. Pcap ping 04:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clear enough. I just wasn't sure whether i made clear that it was a requested restoration. Waiting after restoration to see if sources are added is a good idea, though. In this case they do not yet seem to exist, so delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 14 February 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) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Watanabe (musician)[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced blp (i don't see a link to a primary source website as a reliable source at all) without an assertion of notability even on a video game musician. Part of an extensive walled garden of similiar unsourced blps. Was deprodded by an ip who couldn't demonstrate notability or reliably source it either. Bali ultimate (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well that's not right, is it, a primary source is decent but doesn't demonstrate notability. however, at first glance at this, i will sugggest that kompakt is an important label and releasing records on it is not to be sneezed at (and probably generates coverage). 86.44.33.121 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of charting, no evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: kompakt appears to be the sort of "important" indie label that is the sort that meets WP:MUSIC #5. If this can be confirmed, then he would be presumptively notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I never liked that criteria. Just releasing is weak. When you consider the number of "one hit wonders" out there, if you release 2 albums and still can't chart anything, that makes you look even less notable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sourcing to establish notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems that this DJ is primarily know by the stagename Kaito, but even using that name I don't find enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO. I'm still uncertain of the notability of Kompakt, and his bio on their site makes bogus claims of charting on the US Billboard club play chart; Billboard disagrees. Wine Guy~Talk 02:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not give me the warm fuzzies regarding the label's status, I have to say. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:15, 15 February 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) 06:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhavathy[edit]

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

Pure hoax. POV pushing and vandalism about an non-existent community. Ezhavahy is just an alternative name of Ezhava, a Dalit caste.

Delete Pure hoax. There is no caste by the name Ezhavahy. It is just an alternative name of Ezhava. The user who created the page pushing POV not supported by the references he is siting. ^[1]^[2] Axxn (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note A search in JSTOR and Google books yield not a single record to prove that this is indeed a separate "Brahmin" community. Axxn (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 06:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 06:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it is an alternative name of Ezhava then a merge and redirect is possible, but a ref to prove that is needed, else Delete. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone comes up with third party sources demonstrating notability. Wikid ^as© 10:26, 20 February 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) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Joice[edit]

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

He's a minor DJ, a former tambourine player in a minor band, and a 'friend to the stars', but he doesn't seem to be notable. Some IP editors have left notes on the talk page calling for deletion. He's got a tiny amount of coverage, e.g. [110]. I couldn't find what amounts to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, he's mostly the subject of informal blog and twitter chat. Fences&Windows 03:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a popular discussion. Someone? Anyone? Fences&Windows 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. At least I've heard of this guy before. Would have thought that he's more notable than he actually seems to be. Virtually no independent coverage, and your name on event flyers isn't enough. _noisy jinx ^huh? 02:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find significant coverage of him. Jujutacular ^T · C 07:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climm[edit]

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

This software client does not present any sources that show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This program was previously called mICQ. There is a long tutorial in German here, a reliable source owned by Linux Magazine. Also covered in this book (newer edition), but rather briefly. This newsworthy stunt is also interesting (lwn.net). I'll see if I can find more. Pcap ping 05:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sarre[edit]

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

A heart-warming tale, but one article in The Age does not notability make. And other than that article, I didn't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources. Fences&Windows 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am tempted towards Keep. Apart from the age article there is long bio here from the "Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians", a very brief mention in the WA govt site screenwest, he was one of the features in issue 14 (February 2007 ) of the Scoop Magazine (a WA printed lifestyle glossy - looks related to screenwest). Perhaps this is all there is, but I am reminded that not everything is online - Peripitus (Talk) 08:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peripitus. This and this together satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:00, 14 February 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.