The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 11:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gould[edit]

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

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

Not notable poet blogger Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. His works also appear to have been published in print and are available via Amazon [1], so he's more than just a "poet blogger". It may still be a delete candidate if no notable refs can be found, but I don't think the stated reason is sufficient -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2010

(UTC)

• • I am thinking after looking some more that there is some notability and that I may of been a bit hasty but the article is in need of improvement, I am looking around for independent citations. Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to POETICS list Delete see below It looks like all the ones for sale on amazon.com are self-published -- the listed publishers: Xlibris, lulu.com, and "Henry Gould". "Spuyten Duyvil" seems to be a vanity press.[2] He has had at least one poem [3] published in Jacket,[4] but we should have more than that. Doesn't look notable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If consensus is for delete perhaps a redirect or a merge of whatever relevant content to POETICS_list , is an article that Gould has a strong connection to. Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine by me. I changed my recommendation. If he becomes notable later, the information in the history might be useful. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing in WP:AUTHOR gives notability to an author for getting a book published much less by vanity presses. There's simply none of the in-depth coverage in by independent, reliable, and verifiable, sources that Wikipedia asks for in WP:N. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:09, 27 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) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete His only widely held book, A glass of green tea--with Honig in 132 libraries, is a book where he is one of the three contributors to a biographical tribute to Edwin Honig,. Otherwise his poetry has minimal distribution. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 1 March 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 (NAC) --Jmundo (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Figaredo Alvargonzalez[edit]

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

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

Biographical article about an individual who does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:PEOPLE, which states that a person "is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have not been able to find independent, non-trivial sources to indicate notability, with the qualifier that some sources may be available in Spanish. The Spanish Wikipedia includes a referenced article about the person (here), but most references there appear to be either trivial or not independent. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator withdrawl: References have been added, which demonstrate notability. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:48, 28 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) 03:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciklum[edit]

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

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

Previously deleted, immediately re-created by the same WP:SPA, Ciklum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Claim to notability is a placing in a list by Red Herring magazine, which is currently unverifiable as the pages are 404. Almost entirely the work of an agent of the company. Sources are largely not independent (i.e. repeats of press releases). Needs deletion or a complete rewrite with new sources, IMO. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no notability. Haakon (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt as repeatedly re-created deleted page. This is an IT outsourcing company. Inclusion on "top 100 business" lists is no claim of notability; creation of the list does not automatically confer notability on 100 otherwise unremarkable businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Why wasn't is speedy deleted? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 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. Fails WP:CREATIVE. References/citations do not demonstrate significant independent secondary coverage. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Eliance[edit]

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

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources apart from passing mention in Newsweek article (cited). Last article of a former Wikipedia:Walled garden, the rest of which have been speedied or AFD'd: see creator's user talk page. Under-referenced section on early and personal life suggests WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIO.

Note that this is really a second nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Hardeman. Speedy deletion for this repost following that AFD was declined by an admin, though apparently nothing has been added to deleted article to suggest notability has been better asserted this time around. MuffledThud (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G4. No significant improvement over previous article. 37 references and none of them do much to establish the notability of this person. Seemingly reliable sources such as the LA Times have broken links (making verification difficult) many resources are primary sources and odd ones to use as references (Prince lyrics?) RadioFan (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Erroneous citation is noted (Prince), and has been removed. Re: the LA Times link, I only see one listed, and it's working just fine.

Los Angeles Times. Richardson, Lisa.- 2 Hope to Unseat Inglewood's Longtime Mayor - Election: City Council's Garland Hardeman and Judith Dunlap. November 6, 1994[5] Archer Drezelan (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

• Keep: As stated on the discussion page for Markus Eliance, these are the changes that have been made since the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Hardeman.

REFERENCES:

• 1. Article from CWG Magazine pulled from Google News Archive - published January 28th, 2010 [6] (Added to opening bio as citation for Chicks With Guns Magazine)
• 2. Article from CollegeHumor.com - published January 21, 2010 [7] (Added to alias to as ciation for published work under Jake McCaine)

Note: It has been brought to my attention that despite the appearance of his name in Google News Archive, that it still does not alone merit notability due to the sources being WP:Primary sources:. However, I have found other secondary references regarding his music photography, and have cited under the section Your Proof It Happened.

• 1. SerenaRyder.com - 'Serena stole the show' - live review. [8]
• 2. ReverbNation.com - Letters Burning: Press.[9]
• 3. DatNewCudi.com - Photos: Kid Cudi & Guests Live at Club Nokia, LA[10]

If these secondary sources are invalid, then I will voluntarily move the article back to a sandbox until the required sources become available. Again, any advice would be greatly appreciated. Archer Drezelan (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: We've already established this, via the comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Hardeman: I can accept that. I just spent the last hour and a half reading all the articles on notability, COI, Walled Gardens, proper sourcing, Google searches, etc. I do now have a better understanding of how all this works. To take the mystery out of all this, yes it is an AUTOBIO of sorts, edited by Livewire legend and myself. I found the articles Wikipedia:No_amount_of_editing_can_overcome_a_lack_of_notability and Wikipedia:An_article_about_yourself_is_nothing_to_be_proud_of not only humourous, but quite helpful. Archer Drezelan (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've moved your last comment here, and reverted the strikeout you just did on my rationale for deletion. This is oddly similar to what User:Livewire legend did the last AFD. Please don't edit other editors' comments: see WP:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments for why it's a bad idea. MuffledThud (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why am I being brought into this? :) Livewire legend (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I should note that the information from the early and personal life was pulled from the subjects IMDB page (not sure how or if that counts in regards to a reference for biographical info), as well as a Google search on the subjects birth name. This information was not pulled from thin air. Whatever was available was what was used.

As far as the strikeout, understood. Although I should point out that in the last AFD, the "strikethrough fest" was intiated by User:MuffledThud (while emphasizing a retraction of the offer to userfy); I believe LiveWire Legend was just following your example.

Archer Drezelan (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding strikethroughs to your own comments is perfectly OK: editing other users' comments is not. MuffledThud (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't mean any disrespect by that, by the way. Livewire legend (talk) 20:55, 20 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) 23:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As the page is being continuously updated, and there has been no further protest from the admins, I plead that the AFD be removed, and the article remain active. Archer Drezelan (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can see. here's what's been added since the last AFD:

• links to articles about other people, with photo credits to Markus Eliance
• a referenced paragraph on Lucas Hardemann auditioning twice in childhoof for a role on Nickelodeon

No further secondary sources have been added showing notability per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. This is a repost (with minor changes) of an article that was previously deleted following an AFD, with nothing to indicate that it will meet notability guidelines anytime soon. The only dissenting view so far to the proposed speedy deletion per G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion has been from the original creator(s) of the article. MuffledThud (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Self-promotional, most likely written, at least in part, by subject himself. Evalpor (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to point out that while the changes are indeed small, the changes that have been made do mark notability according to WP:CREATIVE. If if's a matter of the amount of notability, then I would agree to move the page back to the sandbox until there is "enough" notability to your liking.

Secondly, regardless of who wrote the article, unless you can show an example of bias in the writing, I don't see how it would be labeled as self-promotional. It looks pretty straightfoward.

Lastly, As a support to my argument for keeping the article active, I included a discussion from an admin, User:Philippe's [talk page about the article]:

"Hi - actually, I sat and thought about this one for a while: it is my opinion that this meets notability guidelines, regardless of the previous AFD. The major point to me is that he's been published in notable publications. So, while I would seriously have preferred a DRV on it, I don't think it qualifies for speedy delete. - Philippe 23:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC) "

Any opposing or supporting comments are welcome. Archer Drezelan (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My !vote is unchanged, I still dont see this subject meeting WP:CREATIVE. A footnote that links to a Google News search does nothing to establish notability. The LA Times link works now, but it doesn't mention the subject of this article so I'm not sure what notability we are supposed to gain from that reference. Actually, most of these "references" do not even mention Markus Eliance and one only lists the name in a photo credit which is a pretty long way from this person being the primary subject of the article as is required by notability guidelines. --RadioFan (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite everything, he still doesn't appear to be notable under the guidelines. Citations that prove other facts don't go towards significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The definition of "Significant coverage" is debatable under the guidelines. As User:Archer Drezelan mentioned, the argument now seems to be circling around "how notable" the subject is, as opposed to the fact that he is notable in the first place. If the motion to delete is based off a consensus that there's not enough information to satisfy the tastes of MuffledThud, RadioFan, Bejnar, and Evalpor, I disagree with the decision. Based on the comment made by admin Philippe, clearly the sentiment is not unanimous. However, the fact of the matter is there's no getting past the WP:CREATIVE doctrine set forth by the Wikipedian council.

My vote is still to keep; if it must be removed, just leave it in Archer Drezelan's sandbox.

--LiveWire Legend^talk21:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've read the article, looked through the sources and perused this discussion, and I don't see anything which makes this person notable per our guidelines, including WP:CREATIVE. Wine Guy~Talk 00:59, 7 March 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Powell (basketball)[edit]

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

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

I'm not that familiar with articles on athletes, but since Powell still plays at the collegiate level he is not sufficiently notable to pass WP:ATHLETE, at least on my reading of that guideline. Obviously were he to enter the NBA it would be a different story. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article is unencyclopedic and lacks references. (I created this article — but only a redirect way back when — it was subsequently hijacked.)--Hokeman (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:ATHLETE, it's way out of date to boot. THF (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment College basketball players can be notable, and their articles are frequently kept at AFD. WP:ATHLETE is often ignored in favor of WP:N and/or common sense. But Powell is only averaging about 9 points per game at a mid-major school, so I wouldn't care if this article is deleted. Zagalejo^^^ 07:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I disagree with the idea that "WP:ATHLETE is often ignored in favor of WP:N and/or common sense". WP:ATHLETE doesn't prohibit anything at all. It simply spells out that in certain cases (such as a pro basketball player) the person does not have to prove their notability in the usual way. My observation is that college basketball player articles are more frequently deleted if they come to AfD, simply because they tend to be created as part of a fan's attempt to honor all the members of a current team, or (as appears to be in this case), it's someone who is a fan of a particular player. In this case, he's not entitled to the free pass, and he doesn't meet WP:N on his own. Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:Athlete. Oh and he's not tall enough for basketball, I'm taller than him! (I do realise though that this is very common for guards). ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 00:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lacks notability per WP:ATHLETE and general notability guidelines. JamieS93^❤ 23:22, 5 March 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. JForget 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quayeyeware[edit]

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

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

I was not able to find evidence that this company meets the notability criteria. Can anyone else do better? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was unable to find any sources which would establish the notability of this company per WP:GNG. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article doesn't really explain what this organisation is, much less provide any evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This survived a speedy deletion notice under A1, but could easily come under G11 or A7. StAnselm (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When an article's entire text is an attempt to construct an argument for notability rather than about the business itself, it's not a good sign: Quayeyeware attends many trade shows and has been noted in many online magazines, stores and blogs... And I still have no more idea about what this business makes or does as I have about how to pronounce the name. (Not much.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's easy: Quay-eyeware. StAnselm (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- fails our GNG, probably meets our definitions for speedy deletion though. ;-) JBsupreme (talk) 09:38, 4 March 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. JForget 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atherton House School[edit]

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

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

Previously nommed for PROD, creator removed it without reason. Non-notable preschool. (X! · talk)  · @986  ·  22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely no claim to notability, could be speedied. It's just a privately run day nursery. --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No claim of notability; a Google search turns up nothing that demonstrates notability. I think this meets CSDA7. PDCook (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Very few preschools or day care centers would be considered notable. Sad to say, they only make national or international news when something terrible takes place in one. Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If you want me to go along with high schools being kept, fine... but a pre-school? come on. JBsupreme (talk) 09:38, 4 March 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 09:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polyurethane foam[edit]

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

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

Doesn't need to be split from Polyurethane. AppuruPan (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough to warrant its own article. RadManCF (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @958  ·  21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep

1. per RadManCF - it is notable
2. it is already redirected to Polyurethane uses
3. both articles are plenty large and have citations -articles that are too long are disfavored, as most users of Wikipedia use dial-up service. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I guess it's a matter of opinion as to whether a 76K sized article should be split into smaller articles. Polyurethane uses is a logical spinoff from polyurethane, and it's probably more appropriate to have two articles, one aimed at the chemically literate, and this one, aimed at the other 99 percent of people who consult encyclopedias. Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Article is already a redirect. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - acceptable spin off from a very long article, and arguably notable in its own right. Robofish (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - spin off from a long article which has been suggested for splitting - easily notable. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 13:55, 4 March 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. JForget 03:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Gronowski[edit]

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

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

Zero information on this author via Google news, Google books etc. No evidence that he or his books exist.   pablo_hablo. 21:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• note that this is a longterm unreferenced BLP, nominated here rather than PROD because of the spectacular paucity of sources.   pablo_hablo. 22:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not listed at Library of Congress online catalog at http://catalog.loc.gov or British Library catalog at http://catalogue.bl.uk/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @958  ·  21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @958  ·  21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unable to even verify the existence of this person or his novels - much less their notability. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No mentions on GNews/GScholar/GBooks, and Amazon don't have anything by him. WorldCat don't have any of their member libraries having anything written by him.I can't find an evidence of him or the boks at any reliable sources. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A very successful HOAX. Congratulations to the single-purpose account for creating something that stayed up for almost three years. Up until now, nobody seems to have noticed that you didn't mention a publisher. Mandsford (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sure looks like a hoax. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 00:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per all of the above. If Google doesn't know of him, he doesn't exist. C628 (talk) 19:14, 5 March 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. Per WP:NOTNEWS. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2004 LaSalle County, Illinois earthquake[edit]

2004 LaSalle County, Illinois earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Nomination by an IP user who can't create AFD pages. Completing the process, I have no comments on the nomination. Woogee (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no one killed or even hurt, a small earthquake with no coverage outside America, just a news report of one day with no historic meaning and appears to violate the rule WP:NOT#NEWS.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @959  ·  22:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's even no mention of any damage. 4.2 MMS - there are probably thousands of earthquakes of this magnitude each year. Would make sense as a list entry at best. GregorB (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For some regions a 4.2 is a non-event. For others it is a big deal. If it can be sourced, it should be kept, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This earthquake was only a small, localized event not worth mentioning on an international web site such as Wikipedia. The earthquake did not produce any notable damage or casualties. I've noticed that articles on stronger earthquakes that caused damage or even a few casualties have been deleted. As to the argument that this quake is a big deal for those who experienced it, I live in the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas, which experienced a 3.2 earthquake last year, which I personally felt. Although that quake is a big deal around here, since this is a seismically quiet area, I know it is a non-event everywhere else; thus that quake is not worthy of having a Wikipedia article. I favor the administrators deleting this article.

S Martin (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Made in 2005, when Wikipedia would take just about anything. The unsourced statement "yet thousands of people were startled and awoken in the middle of the night" pretty well sums up everything wrong with this article. According to Richter magnitude scale, there are over 6,000 tremors each year in the range of 4.0 to 4.9. This might have rattled the windows. As for people in bed, it's possible that at least one person in LaSalle County said "Do that again, Stanley!" Mandsford (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--DAI (Δ) 22:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for some reason, the IP who nominated this for afd also nominated 2010 Illinois earthquake. These events are notable due to the rarity of the events, and the fact that they are much further north than the usual area for earthquakes in Illinois, which usually center around the New Madrid Fault. Also, the fact that these earthquakes are within the Chicago metropolitan area, which would affect 10 million people. Some of us actually like to read articles about earthquakes, and would appreciate a greater emphasis on the value of scientific articles in Wikipedia. --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this earthquake was notable due to the fact that it was felt in a total of 6 different states, thus, it was not just a small localized event as someone erroneously mentioned above. In addition, it occurred within 10-20 miles of the LaSalle and Dresden Nuclear Power Plants, and had any severe damage occurred to those plants, it would have been catastropic.

Keep Update, I've added 4+ more references to the article, including the USA Today story about the earthquake stating that it was a rare event for this area, and another source that stated that it was the first earthquake in that county in 123 years, almost to the day. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS applies. USA Today includes a lot of non-notable stuff from verious states so that people traveling know what happened back home. WP:RECENTISM might apply here. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it was not only in USA Today, but also written up at the USGS and the Indiana University PEPP program (Princeton Earth Physics Project) too. I'm planning to add that reference also, as soon as I have some time. I still don't understand why a seismological event that rarely happens in Northern Illinois, so close to Chicago, the 3rd largest U.S. population center, would not be notable. Wikipedia could certainly use more Earthquake articles, as the WikiProject Earthquakes has only tagged 796 articles. Deleting the four articles that the anonymous IP user nominated on Feb. 27th would not help the project at all. It would be nice to have some editors actually help to contribute to the earthquake articles, instead of just demanding that they be deleted, not to mention that scientific articles on earthquakes actually belong in an encyclopedia. --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a minor quake of little to no significance. --Bejnar (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I still don't understand why everyone wants to delete the earthquake articles, but to keep 109,000+ association football articles, that seems to be okay. I can see everyone's priorities are sports, not science. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:02, 6 March 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 per WP:NOTNEWS. Someone may want to instead source the information on this quake in Newport-Inglewood Fault. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Inglewood earthquake[edit]

2009 Inglewood earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

AFD nomination by an IP who can't create AFD pages. I have no comment on the validity of this nomination. Woogee (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no one killed or even hurt, a small earthquake with no coverage outside America, just a news report of one day with no historic meaning and appears to violate the rule WP:NOT#NEWS.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @960  ·  22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @960  ·  22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Spurious nomination.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quite clearly a notable event with plenty of WP:RS. Lugnuts (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because no one died doesn't mean it's not notable, and I would argue that earthquakes are inherently notable due to their relative rarity (<10 or 15 big ones a year, generally) C628 (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You are correct about the relative rarity of "big ones". According to Richter magnitude scale, those in the range of 7.0 or greater would happen no more than 20 times a year. On the other hand, quakes in the range of 4.0 to 4.9 occur 6,000 times a year. Not surprisingly, it was mentioned on the news that day and the day after, but there's no indication that this was considered notable enough to be mentioned a month or even a week after it happened. WP:RECENT is right on point on this. It's been up for nine months, which is eight months and three weeks longer than it should have been. Mandsford (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--DAI (Δ) 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous editors. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an earthquake is SoCal where the only damage is one broken window? Must have been a slow news day for anyone to report this. But a lot of people don't understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a tabloid. Such is life. WP:NOTNEWS. Transwiki to WikiNews if they want it. -Atmoz (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The 2008 Chino Hills earthquake was a couple times stronger and also occured near Los Angeles but not as close to the main city. That one is now a WP:GA as it had plenty of references about damage and scientific data. And now this one is getting deleted for being a few times weaker? ~AH1^(TCU) 02:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the confusion (I'll admit that I get confused by it) is the way the Richter scale is set up, on a logarithmic measure, whereby a 6.0 is one-thousand times as powerful as a 4.0 and a 4.0 is 1,000 times as powerful as a 2.0, etc. Under that "every 2.0 of magnitude is 1,000 times worse" scale, a 5.0 would be 31.6 times as violent as the 4.0; the 2008 quake was a 5.5 and the 2009 Inglewood was a 4.7, so rather than being a couple of times stronger, it would be more like ten times stronger. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This AfD is likely to be a waste of time. I once tried to argue that a storm which never made land, lasted for only two days and never reached hurricane strength was not a candidate for a good artilcle but Juliancolton promoted it to GA (notability is not a GA requirement by the way) see Talk:Tropical Storm Nana (2008). Polargeo (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you, but it's still good to register comments. WP:AIRCRASH got reformed into something sensible after having been used to justify nearly every incident that ever happened on an airliner. The rule on earthquakes, bad weather, crimes, etc. is that people want to be the first to write about it if it's on CNN. Most of these things have zero historical notability and won't even be mentioned as a footnote five years from now, but as with the news media anywhere, "recent" and "local" get heavy emphasis. Mandsford (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The thing is, five years from now, will these articles have been deleted or will they stay forever and make people reading them think they talk about something of great significance? --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that eventually, most of these will be purged from Wikipedia, but it won't happen until persons who are interested in earthquakes work out a reasonable policy on what would have historical notability, and what wouldn't. Right now, the standard is "it happened here today". Honestly, nobody really cares about a 4.7 tremor that happened in Inglewood in 1960, or in Indonesia in 2009. In the case of events that don't really merit their own article, one of the problems is that people really aren't sure where they can mention those, so they're left to writing "2010 earthquake in _________". I think that the most informative type of article would be based on location -- in this instance, it would make more sense to write about this minor event on the page about the Newport-Inglewood Fault. For whatever reason, one of the authors of this article acknowledged that fault, but apparently didn't want to believe there was a connection, tossing in an uncited statement that "The Newport-Inglewood Fault runs through the area, but it is currently unclear whether the quake occurred on that fault". Seems like faulty logic to me. Mandsford (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge sourced, pertinent information to Newport-Inglewood Fault and redirect. This quake is already mention in that article, but without sources. If this were to be closed as a redirect, the sources could be pulled from this article's history and placed in the Inglewood Fault article. Wine Guy~Talk 01:17, 7 March 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 Substantial consensus for notability and keep Mike Cline (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Eureka earthquake[edit]

2010 Eureka earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

AFD nominated by an IP who can't create AFD pages. I have no comment on the validity of the nomination. Woogee (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no one killed or seriously hurt, a small earthquake with no coverage outside America, just a news report of one day with no historic meaning and appears to violate the rule WP:NOT#NEWS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.109.73 (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @960  ·  22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @960  ·  22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quite clearly a notable event with plenty of WP:RS. Lugnuts (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because no one died doesn't mean it's not notable, and I would argue that earthquakes are inherently notable due to their relative rarity (<10 or 15 big ones a year, generally) C628 (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 6.5 is not a small earthquake, and there was plenty of coverage from around the world, not just the US. Plus it was the largest quake to affect California in over 6 years, and the largest to affect Eureka since 1992. RapidR (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think a thousand 6.5s occur per year. The point that occurred in the U.S. doesn't mean it is notable--DAI (Δ) 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There were some minor injuries, so it's perhaps more important than the usual CNN/Fox tremor. However, there's no historical significance demonstrated to this one. I think the article will, ultimately, be kept, because it passes the two tests that many Wikipedia editors find important: (1) Did it happen in a year that begins with "2"? and (2) Did it happen in the United States? No surprise that it got mentioned on January 9. It would be surprising if it got mentioned in February. Remember the 1953 earthquake near Algiers where "dozens of people suffered minor injuries"? Neither does anyone else. Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was stronger than the second earthquake off Eureka, and plenty of earthquakes as weak as mag. 3 - 5 get Wikipedia articles in the Central United States and the United Kingdom, especially in Illinois because they are relatively rare and are associated with other boundaries such as the New Madrid Fault. This particular earthquake is not particularly rare, but recent earthquakes in this area where activity was low previously would indicate that the region is getting more active, and we should have enough coverage of this on Wikipedia as it occurs. I would say that only about 100 earthquakes occur each year around the world that are magnitude 6.5 or stronger, and of course we don't have an article on every one of them but this quake affected a populated area that is expecting quakes in the future, so a quake of this size is relatively notable. If a M6.5 occured off Honshu, or the Dominican Republic, Portugal, Turkey, Karachi, Kuwait, etc., or especially in an American area with few earthquakes such as Yellowstone, Oklahoma, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, New York, Boston etc. with no deaths, it would probably still get a Wikipedia article. Simply occuring in the US or in 2010 does not make the event non-notable, and in the 21st century we simply have more data available to record earthquakes so an article would be easier to write. Notability is somewhat subjective, especially for specific events that affected populations such as this. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Though it is rather short, this article could easily be expanded. --12george1 (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2010 earthquakes --DAI (Δ) 10:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This earthquake is sufficiently notable from its size. Mikenorton (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 6.5 Mw is notable when it happens in a populated area. Unlike a quake of, say 4.0 Mw, a large quake has lasting scientific and historical significance. Regarding various numbers that have been suggested in this thread, the USGS estimates that 75 quakes of 6.5 or greater occur worldwide each year.[11]--Wine Guy~Talk 01:36, 7 March 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 Substantial consensus for notability and keep Mike Cline (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Illinois earthquake[edit]

2010 Illinois earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Nominated for deletion by an IP who can't create AFD pages. I have no comment on the nomination. Woogee (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no one killed or even hurt, a small earthquake with no coverage outside America, just a news report of one day with no historic meaning and appears to violate the rule WP:NOT#NEWS.

There are however many articles like this on wikipedia, this one is important, in that it was an earthquake in a place where there is not earthquakes, it is notable in that fact Skuzbucket (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it does fulfill the requirements outlined by Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Notability. First, the earthquake "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" such as the New York Times (cited in the article), the Christian Science Monitor^[1], and the Wall Street Journal^[2] to name just a few. Second, any earthquake in Illinois is rare, especially one that generates national news coverage. This particular earthquake is notable scientifically because its origins are not understood well. —Diiscool (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Diiscool. Lost on Belmont (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @960  ·  22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @960  ·  22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or make a general article on northern Illinois earthquakes, and merge that information there. The earthquake was pretty weak, but it's still interesting to many people because of where it took place. It would be a shame to get rid of this material entirely. Zagalejo^^^ 07:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least temporarily, since I have heard of this quake in the news, but an article on earthquakes in Illinois seems to be be needed, which this one can then be merged into along with similar articles such as the LaSalle County quake several years ago.

S Martin (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Quite clearly a notable event with plenty of WP:RS. Lugnuts (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitely meets the notability requirements. Just because no one died doesn't mean it's not significant, and I think Diiscool puts it perfectly. C628 (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Diiscool makes some sensible arguments about a quake in the Chicago area being an unusual event (Southern Illinois has had its share because it's close to the New Madrid fault). However, it falls squarely under WP:NOTNEWS. Sure, it made the news the day it happened, but two weeks later, is anyone mentioning it? We get plenty of articles entitled "2010 _____________" (tremor, plane making an unscheduled landing, event where more than one person was shot, man bites dog) simply because it's on CNN or Fox that day. Usually, there's a grace period of a week or two before a nomination is made, simply because some news events do turn out to get covered days and weeks later. This doesn't appear to be one of those events. I agree with Zag that a general article would be preferable to this type of "breaking news" piece. Mandsford (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete depressing america-centrism. Millions of such shakings occur every year.--DAI (Δ) 22:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable due to rarity of event, further north than usual area for earthquakes to strike Midwest. --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable and sourced. Hooper (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pass WP:NOTNEWS Power.corrupts (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Of course it has sources, it just isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's notable due to the fact that it was a rare event, in an area (Northern Illinois) where earthquakes occur 2-3 times a century. Secondly, why not keep a scientific article contributing to the study of earthquakes on Wikipedia? I wish that there would be more emphasis on science in Wikipedia, it's pretty sad that Category:WikiProject Earthquakes articles has only 796 articles, and on the other hand, Category:WikiProject Football articles has 109,249 articles. Is it really possible that all 109,249 association football articles are noteworthy?? Why the emphasis on sports and not seismology?? What is wrong with having one or two more earthquake articles?? --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A minor quake of no significance. Earthquakes like this are not so rare in northern Illinois. Much bigger quakes like the 1909 Jun 26 14:42 5.1M Intensity VII in Aurora and the 1972 Sep 15 05:22 4.0M Intensity VI northern Illinois, were more substantial and only occur a couple of times a century in northern Illinois. --Bejnar (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and the two quakes mentioned above need articles too, as they don't have any right now, even though they're notable. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the intrigue caused by the unusual location of the quake, which caused notable coverage by WP:RSs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While a 3.8Mw on the New Madrid Fault would not be notable, this one is scientifically significant because they have not yet been able to associate it with a known fault. Wine Guy~Talk 01:52, 7 March 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Tucker[edit]

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

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

Some discussion here regarding his meeting notability, as almost every source is either unreliable or only trivially about him. Kept through an AFD in November 2009, but the concerns are being voiced strongly enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Apparently I started this article, years ago. Thanks to the efforts of many editors, the article is a lot stronger now than when it went to AfD before, and the publications list has been expanded. I have never seen an article with so many citations go to AfD on notability grounds before. Strongest media sources include: San Francisco Chronicle and Good Morning America. But it is Tucker's notability as a well qualified and widely published researcher, and author, that impresses me. Apparently Life Before Life has now been translated into ten languages, see Cedar Creek Institute Board Members: Jim B. Tucker. And I just noticed that Tucker received a research bursary from the Bial Foundation for € 50,000 in 2001 [12]. Johnfos (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails WP:PROF and there has been no compelling evidence that he meets the GNG. That one of his books may be notable or has been translated into x languages is irrelevant - the books have articles already. I'd have rather continued to try to find sources showing notability, but as it has been so long and they haven't been forthcoming, I must !vote delete due to lack of notability. Verbal chat 23:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep given the number of references claims of non-notability are utterly ridiculous. Artw (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not the number, but the quality. --Bejnar (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I wasn't going to bring the article up for deletion again, but no specific claim of WP:GNG or WP:PROF has been substantiated. Yet. As of a few hours ago, there were few sources which (clearly had, or were claimed to have) significant coverage about him, rather than about his works or cases. One of the "better" (i.e., most used as an example justifying WP:GNG) sources was about one of his subjects, with any comment about him or his works being secondary. As for the specifics above, the second reference above is about the book Life Before Life (and is not strong evidence that the book is notable; it could easily be sponsored by the book publisher), and the research bursary is clearly not notable, as has been pointed out before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. His work and his cases clearly pertain to him. Mitsube (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referering to the documentary about his investigation of Cameron Macaulay I've addressed that here [13]. You'll note that per the GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material", so even if you could argue that it was more about Macaulay than Tucker the significant coverage ithin still counts towards notability. Artw (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep He is obviously notable, even a very brief look through the references and a cursory online search would show that. While I personally think that this sort of woowoo actualy creates a negative space in the sum total of human knowledge, being rubbish isn't a valid reason for non inclusion. He is sadly notable.Amentet (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Arthur Rubin (which is not something I get to say often enough). Niteshift36 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Assistant professor in pseudoscience area. Minimal GS cites yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep He is certainly notable as per WP:GNG considering Artws answer to Arthur Rubin above. He is also notable as the successor to Ian Stevenson. (This is all utterly ridiculus.. Go to Stevensons article & check the other guy with with the same name, the cricketer.. there you may have a genuine case for AFD )Hepcat65 (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The parapsychologist Ian Stevenson has a substantial presence on Google Scholar. This candidate has not yet achieve the same level of distinction. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. The overwhelming coverage that has been made on Tucker's research and his routinely being employed as an expert on the subject by mainstream media is quite sufficient as a rationale to keep the article. The dogged assaults on these articles, with much sophistry, leaves me with a strong impression of I don't like it and it is increasingly difficult to retain a good faith attitude towards editors who appear to want to purge Wikipedia from covering certain topics which remain paradoxical towards current scientific consensus, based on that as the main motivating factor. With basis in Hepcat65's comment about other biographies I think a major argument here is that there shouldn't be another standard for articles on people which some editors scorn, basically on dogmatic grounds. __meco (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not scorning the subject on dogmatic grounds. As I said above, the article on Ian Stevenson is well sourced and the subject is notable. I would oppose its deletion. My problem with the present article is that it doesn't reach the same standards. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If you read my previous comment carefully, you'll notice I'm commenting on Ian Stevenson (cricketer)s notability compared to Tuckers. This is of course no argument, just a comment on the suspected tendency to I don't like it that directs editors who keep on nominating well sourced articles for deletion. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reincarnation_research Hepcat65 (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is unusually strongly sourced, and the opposing arguments have hanging over them the unmistakeable wiki-odour of IDONTLIKEIT, not to mention ITDOESNTMATTERWHATYOUSAYCOSIMNOTLISTENING, as put better by User:MECo above.HeartofaDog (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per meco. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I think we have an unfortunate double standard here: mainstream scientists are consistently held to a much higher standard than fringe scientists, and that this double standard leads to an unduly large amount of coverage of the fringe in our encyclopedia. For a mainstream scientist, a keep in an AfD needs to document significant scholarly impact of their work (typically thousands of citations with some individual papers having hundreds) while a fringe scientist typically garners many keep votes on the basis only of a few sources that show that they exist and believe what the article says they believe. By typical academic biography standards Tucker does not have the impact we should be asking for: e.g. in a Google scholar search for Tucker and reincarnation I found only 11 citations for his top publication, far below the usual standard for WP:PROF #1. All that said, I think the sources on the article provide some evidence that he passes WP:PROF #7. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a very uneven comparison you are making. By stepping outside the reigning paradigm of science as defined by its most rigidly dogmatic apologists the "fringe scientists" have taken upon themselves a very heavy burden indeed, i.e. that of being outsiders – scorned, ridiculed and marginalized – by default. If nothing else, following such a career path takes courage. The very basis of your argument is flawed, because if it were valid, Wikipedia would violate its own policies by giving such topics as covered by the paranormal, religious and spiritual topic realms any attention other than as social phenomena, let alone attempting to describe the arguments and investigative results presented by their proponents. You cannot judge the opposition by the rules set down by the incumbent class alone, even though you can do so with members of the incumbent class. That is why everyone accepts that mainstream scientists be judged by their own standards. However, since one fundamental function of these standards is to enforce loyalty towards the mainstream view of how science must be performed and delimited, it does not constitute inconsequential acting when the opposition also gets to have its views on what the rules of conducting science should be, considered when evaluating these non-mainstream, dissident, non-conforming to (some of) the majority-set rules, scientists for a general audience. It is relevant and significant that Wikipedia is produced for a general audience and not for the mainstream scientific community. Thus our guidelines and policies appropriately acknowledge the majority position, defined as compliance to the mainstream scientific consensus paradigm, and to a large extent conform to it, however, for the reason that we are producing a general encyclopedia, we have modified our rules accordingly. So, as you write that "[b]y typical academic biography standards Tucker does not have the impact we should be asking for", we are nevertheless not bound to evaluate Tucker's notability on those standards alone. Indeed we shouldn't strive to do so. None of us should. Because to advocate doing so exposes a detrimental flaw in comprehending what a general encyclopedia is in contrast with either a chronicle of scientific proceedings or annals of academic living. And as long as that fallacy persists we shall keep fighting among ourselves. And that surely is not to the benefit of developing Wikipedia. __meco (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was this supposed to make sense, or is it just intended to sound poetic? Because I'm not getting much out of this long comment beyond some vague special pleading for giving more attention to the nuts because of how brave they are to be so nutty. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an objective observation, Eppstein's statement is sound. The criteria for notability of mainstream academics/scholars/scientists, as demonstrated on these pages, are in practice much higher than for those outside the mainstream. Fringers tend to get favourable treatment in WP so I don't think you have much to complain about. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

And even that observation is based on the flawed presupposition that the same ratio of mainstream scientists versus fringe scientists should be deemed notable. That certainly goes to the core of my reasoning above, and although that may be a correct observation per se, the underlying argument that this is a problem to be corrected is myopic. You simply do not address, nor take into consideration, my main points. How many (tens of) thousands of scientifically trained researchers aren't working with grants from the pharmaceutical industry to advance development of heart medicines or cancer drugs? Non-mainstream scientists/researchers mainly engage in primary research, whereas mainstream scientists to a very high extent work in applied fields or on specialized research assaying a large territory where its boundaries have previously been established. Dismissing such monumental factors from the equation simply belies your argument altogether. __meco (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a fair number of news accounts in RSs. [14] DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per meco and hepcat. I will remember to copy and paste their arguments the next time someone nominates this article for deletion. Mitsube (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:Author 3 "The person 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." i see a continued pattern of deleting academics with notable mass media references. is it "popularizer envy"? Pohick2 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt it. I think the legitimate concern is that WP should not inadvertently develop the reputation as a "white-pages" of fringe and crank "scientists", just as it shouldn't be a superset of facebook. (Note that I'm not necessarily commenting on this particular case!) This is largely why notability criteria are much more strict than a few years ago. I don't think you should read anything more into it than that. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep Ample news coverage about this guy. Dream Focus 01:15, 7 March 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 per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay (word)[edit]

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

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

The clearest content fork you are ever likely to see c.f. gay. Please vote SPEEDY DELETE. - Wolfkeeper 20:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This was a discussed split from the article gay, that doesn't seem to have been properly completed. Hopefully someone from the discussion at Talk:Gay#New_proposal can explain what is going on. (I'll notify them now) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Until nominator provides links showing what this article is a fork of. RadManCF (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm.... already there; this is a completely unlinked and unloved clone of gay.- Wolfkeeper 22:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or merge any viable content. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. I noticed this duplication a while back and then promptly forgot about it. It seems to be linked to failed proposal some while back to split the original gay article. Paul B (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - if possible. Redrafts are useful if they are looking at ways to improve the article but should never be in mainspace as cforks. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Snowball Delete - per ↑ and ↓ - also, clear duplicate, no point userfying --Jubilee♫clipman 03:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gay → Speedy delete -- The Anome (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC), updated 02:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (A10) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete everything is the same as gay, nothing to merge....also A10 is for recently created articles only CTJF83 chat 10:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per A10. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - article was created in 2007 and is thus not eligible for Speedy under A10. Removed db tag --Jubilee♫clipman 02:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum - admittedly, the original article was a redirect; however, the new version was created 4 months ago: hardly recent --Jubilee♫clipman 02:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: ignoring the one vote that obviously hasn't read the nom, I'm calling for WP:SNOWBALL DELETE.- Wolfkeeper 03:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is a duplicate of Gay. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 03:25, 1 March 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. JForget 03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamismophobia[edit]

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

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

WP:NEO. The sole user in a reliable source is Martin Amis, who is describing himself. Ironholds (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neologism. The only mentions of this word on the web all refer to Martin Amis and are usually in quotes - indicating that the word has not passed into the language but is a term used by one person. --MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a neologism. I note that there was at one time a "islamismophobia.com", but that domain registry appears to have lapsed in November 2007, ten months after Martin Amis used the word in The Independent. Cnilep (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly WP:NEO applies here, this is just a word used by a famous novelist, not deserving of an article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment any objections of speedy redirect to Islamophobia? CTJF83 chat 10:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good idea, the term is discussed as specifically not being the same thing as "Islamophobia," and obviously seems to have been coined to distinguish how Amis feels from the more general "I-don't-like-Muslims" sentiment of an Islamophobe. Deletion without a redirect makes a lot more sense, unless there is a list of neologisms somewhere we can redirect this to. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's unsourced though, but if you don't think a redirect is good then I'll go for....

• Delete per above, mostly NEO. CTJF83 chat 18:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NEO. Arjun⁰²⁴ 08:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear WP:NEO. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. The only other redirect target I could think of would be Martin Amis, if the term is closely associated with him enough to make it worthwhile. I'm not sure that's the case, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:19, 4 March 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe_Szwaja[edit]

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

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

Non notable, minor public official with no recent political office. Novelty candidate in numerous elections, with little success. Bevinbell 18:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In my opinion, the sources listed in the article are enough to meet the general notability guidelines. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are articles surrounding his election efforts, but I do think it fails WP:Politician. Bevinbell 18:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he fails WP:POLITICIAN. This does not however bar the article from being kept on the basis of passing the general notability guidelines. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:Prof and WP:Politician. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• How do you feel about the general notability guidelines? Specifically, I contend that Szwaja "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Jujutacular ^T · C 00:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be much out of the ordinary. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG as well. The coverage is not significant under the terms of the guideline. StAnselm (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Szwaja fails WP:POLITICIAN but he passes WP:BIO / WP:GNG. As Davewild (talk · contribs) wrote at another AfD, "The general notability guideline supersedes any subject specific guidelines." Wikipedia:Notability (people) (which encompasses WP:POLITICIAN) says that "A person is presumed notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Szwaja has clearly received this coverage.

  See this article from The Seattle Times, where Szwaja receives over ten paragraphs of coverage, and this article from Seattle Post-Intelligencer, where he receives exactly ten paragraphs of coverage. These sources, coupled with the numerous sources already present in the article, establish that Joe Szwaja passes Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Cunard (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As noted, there are a number of references from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, hitting all the points in WP:GNG. As for WP:POLITICIAN: "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." (though one might argue that Madison, the capitol of Wisconsin, isn't a major metropolitan city, and he there isn't much from his seven years on council there) Bennetto (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although Madison (pop. 229,000) is not large enough that a member of its council would be automatically notable, there seem to be sufficient sources for him in particular. I DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Would you not agree that most, if not all, the coverage is linked to failed runs for public office. Does failed campaign coverage rise to the level of significant coverage/notability? Bevinbell 17:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Failed elections are generally less notable than successes, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable at all. Many Americans with a good background of history could tell you who gave the Cross of Gold speech; far fewer, I suspect, could name his opponent. As for coverage: just because he lost doesn't mean the coverage he received isn't "significant". Bennetto (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would pose that there is a big difference between a democratic nominee for president and a City Council candadite and green party candadite for a congressional seat in terms of notability.Bevinbell 18:06, 2 March 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 no credible indication of importance or significance JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler small[edit]

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

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

14-year old "upcoming pop star" who has not actually released an album Bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 27 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. was already CSD'd (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Farnworth[edit]

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

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE; contested prod VernoWhitney (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am including the below comments from the article's talk page for consideration regarding the prod and this AfD, as the two users involved in editing the page appear to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is relevant , as this person has competed in, and won many major junior trap shooting competitions throughout North America and Europe, this can be proven through records found at the Dolphin Inn in Longton, Lancashire. Further proof of this is through the Omemee doctor, Jules Sobrian, as he has co-trained Daniel along with Daniel's father, at Peterborough Trap Shooting Club. I have personally seen him shoot, and was impressed by his winning streak over the years. Some people have been adding extensive information to this person's page. This page requires only information on him and his trap shooting, NOT information about his ancestry. I have deleted this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrapShooterPageCreator (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This article also complies with the article about Jules Sobrian and is significant as he has had management by him and should be considered a safe article. As long as this article stays unedited, then this page should be kept, because it explains his trap shooting. If any information is added that is unrelated, then this article should be revised. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrapShooterPageCreator (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Before the page was destructed by a user at a blocked IP address..it was then taken from my talk page, to make me look like a bad editor, I have since changed my password, and I will make sure this page will never get vandalized on here or my talk page, EVER. Thank you Wikipedia for your support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.41.176 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment More from the talk page VernoWhitney (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC):[reply]

If anymore proposals for deletion come up for this page and it is because of vandalism from unregistered users, then it shall be deleted, but it will be unfortunate. I will try as hard I can to make sure no more info is added to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrapShooterPageCreator (talk • contribs) 18:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This shooter is a significant shooter throughout the UK and Canada. This wikipedia page should definately be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.41.176 (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see reliable, third party sources that support that claim. Even so, I don't see subject meeting WP:Athlete. More info is not the problem. Information in significant coverage showing the subject meets notability requirements and backed by reliable sources is what we need. Dlohcierekim 21:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due diligence. Unable to locate reliable, 3rd party sources on Google. References on page do not support claim to notability. Dlohcierekim 21:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. I don't see any claim to notability in this article. Competing in the Canadian Trapshooting Championship doesn't appear to be a claim to notability given that I can't find any independent coverage of the event from the last 20 years or more. Also, there are no independent reliable sources about the subject provided in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication of notability. Talk page comments might assert significance, but are unsupported. A lot of name dropping and insistence of importance, but wring it all out and there is no notability in the article as it stands. Dlohcierekim 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Those sources indicated on the Talk page deserve further research. Who will join me at the Dolphin Inn to check them out? Woogee (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woogee, as a former admin, you should have a clearer grasp of WP:RS. Cheerio, Dlohcierekim 21:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, after a couple of pints, nobody will care.  :) Woogee (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody well right, though we can't use OR. LOL. Alas, it's off to work I go. Dlohcierekim 22:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this person Dan Farnworth HAS competed in the Canadian Trap Shooting Championship in Hamilton in 2008 and 2009. He has competed in the Kreighoff DTL Trap Shooting Competition in 2003, and he was a long time member at A6 gun club and the Dolphin Inn. He is now a member at Peterborough Trap and Skeet Club, he practises his skills alongside Olympic gold medalist, Jules Sobrian. (TrapShooterPageCreator (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete unless third party sources demonstrating notability turn up in the entry. Currently there are none, and making a lot of noise on the AFD page won't solve the problem. Hairhorn (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, despite the fact that this was a contested PROD with an assertion of significance, it's been speedily deleted by User:Bwilkins. Dlohcierekim 12:09, 28 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.

Daniel E. Witte[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 02:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Balaican[edit]

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

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

Non-notable person involved in minor political scandal. No other noteworthy qualifications. Recommend delete. Suttungr (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; WP:BLP1E. The scandal itself is more than adequately covered by Judy Sgro's article; we don't need separate biographical articles about other individuals who were involved but aren't notable for anything else. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. PKT(alk) 18:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge/redirect to Judy Sgro. THF (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I started this article -- in 2005. In 2005 there was no WP:BLP, and thus no blp1e. WRT merging to Judy Sgro -- I don't think this is appropriate. Sgro was the Minister of Immigration for barely a year. The general phenomenon of Canada giving skilled worker visas to foreign dancers -- mainly Romanians, was of long-standing. Following this nomination I did some homework. There have been at least four Romanian dancers who came to Canada who have received significant news coverage. The other three received that coverage either before, or after, Ms Sgro was the Minister.
  • Reply Just because this article predated the WP:BLP policy doesn't mean that it should be grandfathered. The article still needs to meet those guidelines or else be removed. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is recommending grandfathering? I recommended the creation of an article on the topic of Canada issuing over a thousand skilled worker visas to Romanian women to work in the sex trade. This is something that I think undeniably can be documented. The issuing of these visas were issued during the time when seven ministers were in this portfolio: Elinor Caplan, Denis Coderre, Judy Sgro, Joe Volpe, Monte Solberg, Diane Finley, and Jason Kenney. I think it is an extremely bad idea to bury coverage of this notable, controversial program in the articles on individual Ministers of Immigration. Geo Swan (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I strongly disagree with the assertion, repeated several times here, that "the scandal itself is more than adequately covered by Judy Sgro's article." Among the details not currently covered in the Sgro article are:
  • Balaican married a Canadian man, and as the spouse of a Canadian she was entitled to apply for both Canadian citizenship, and a less restrictive visa, which would allow her to apply for jobs outside of the exotic dancer industry.
  • Balaican had been fined $250 because a patron at the exotic dance club had touched her body in a way prohibited by law. She had subsequently quit dancing.
  • Because Balaican had quit dancing her skilled worker visa was no longer valid, and a determination had not yet been made as to whether she was entitled to the new less restrictive visa she was entitled to apply for.
  • Special "Minister's permits" are routine in cases like hers -- special permits that allow the applicant to remain in Canada until the determination is made as to whether they qualify for a new different visa.
  • After the controversy broke Balaican and her husband wrote a public letter in which they stated that they never met Sgro, and there was no quid pro quo.
  • Bernard Shapiro, then the Canadian Parliament's Ethics Commissioner published a 64 page report on his investigation into whether Sgro had violated ethical standards. This report uses Balaican's name 53 times.
  • Shapiro's report concluded that Sgro had not in fact met Balaican or Mulholland, and was unaware when she signed the routine Minister's permit that Balaican and Mulholland had volunteered to work on her re-election campaign. But he also concluded that some of her campaign staff were aware, and he faulted her for having campaign staff who put her in the position of appearing to be in an ethical conflict.
    • Reply WRT your comments, pts 1-3 are irrelevant to Sgro. The remaining points are relevant and if properly sourced could be included in the Sgro article. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, no, I do not agree that "the scandal itself is more than adequately covered by Judy Sgro's article." Could these other elements be shoehorned into the Sgro article? Maybe. It could trigger a concern that the Sgro article was being soapboxed, and stuffed with details that really belonged in another article. Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Other Romanian dancers in Canada, of note, include: Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Loredana Silion -- In 1999 Silion sued the Canadian government in order to get a skilled worker's visa. Her visa application had been turned down. She had worked as a topless dancer in Romania. She had not worked as a nude dancer. The Ministry of Immigration employee charged with determining whether she was entitled to a skilled workers visa to work as a nude dancer in Canada decided that her previous experience as a topless dancer wasn't sufficiently related.
     • Mark Heinzl (1999-04-05). "Canada's Government Gets Skimpy With Work Visas for Exotic Dancers". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2010-02-02. Retrieved 2010-02-02. The Canadian government, peeling her art of its euphemisms, calls the 22-year-old Ms. Silion a stripper and won't issue a work permit. Forced to cool her heels in her hometown of Brasov, Romania, where she dances for the equivalent of about $5 a night, she has sued in Canada's Federal Court to force its hand.
     • "Stripper not naked enough for Canada". Independent Online. 2000-01-15. Retrieved 2010-03-01. Experience as a topless dancer in Romania was not enough to qualify her for the job, the judge found.
  2. Alina Balaican -- details above
  3. "Andreea" -- the stage name of a Romanian dancer whose father is a Romanian diplomat, who tried to get her visa changed to let her switch from one club to another.
     • "Stripteuzele romance tirasc in scandaluri Guvernul Canadei". 9am. 2004-11-27. Archived from the original on 2010-03-01. translation
  4. Irene Gabriela Astanoaiei -- a medical doctor who came to Canada in 1999 to pursue her medical career. The process through which doctors with foreign medical credentials become certificated to practice in Canada is long, expensive, and problematic. She started working as an exotic dancer as she tried to navigate these channels. She disappeared under mysterious circumstanced in 2008.
     • Don Peat (2008-04-11). "Mystery of the missing stripper". Toronto Sun. Archived from the original on 2010-02-28. Astanoaiei came to Canada nine years ago. Trained as a doctor in Romania, she worked at the Pro Cafe strip club in Vaughan. She was trying to get enough money to become a doctor here or with her husband in the U.S., her friend said.
     • Don Peat (2008-04-11). "Missing stripper committed suicide?". Toronto Sun. Archived from the original on 2010-03-01. Did a Romanian doctor turned-exotic-dancer take her own life? Quebec police say their investigation into Gabriela Astanoaiei's disappearance points to suicide. But her friends in Toronto say they can't believe the woman who once worked at a Vaughan strip club would harm herself.
     • Cornelia Rosoga (2008-04-12). "Irene Gabriela Astanoaiei , stripteuza romanca, disparuta la Toronto". Gardianul. Archived from the original on 2010-02-28.
     • ""Elodia" din Canada este de negasit". Ziare. 2008-04-12. Archived from the original on 2010-02-28.
     • John Stewart (2008-04-14). "Suicide suspected in missing stripper case". OTTAWA REGION MEDIA GROUP. Archived from the original on 2010-02-28. A note was found inside the coat, with a photo of her family and a cellphone. Because they suspect suicide, police will not reveal certain details of their investigation.
• Merge to an article entitled something like Romanian dancers in Canada, to cover the issuing of skilled worker visas to Romanian dancers, to cover those like the four I noted above, who have been covered in WP:RS, and to cover what can be said of the other 996 or so who haven't been covered. Minister Sgro didn't start the controversial practice of giving temporary work visa to exotic dancers. And she didn't end the practice. So it is inappropriate to shoehorn this material into her article. In 2008 Diane Finley, who was then Minister of Immigration, had bodyguards assigned because she had received "Numerous threats, of an escalating nature" -- stemming from her plans to introduce legislation permanently prohibiiting giving temporary visas to exotic dancers. The program itself merits coverage, separate from the articles on the Ministers of Immigration who happen to be in office when incidents occur. Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terry Pedwell (2008-04-23). "Minister threatened over 'stripper law'". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2010-02-28. Security has been tightened around Immigration Minister Diane Finley following threats related to Conservative efforts to keep foreign strippers out of Canada. Numerous threats, of an escalating nature, have been made against the minister in recent weeks, several sources have told The Canadian Press. The exact nature of the threats was not revealed, but sources say they are directly linked to Bill C-17, the government's anti-stripper legislation. The sources hinted at an organized crime connection.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - poorly referenced trivia that violates BLP1E. LadyofShalott 18:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the topic of Canada giving temporary "skilled worker" visas to over a thousand Romanian women to work in the sex trade is not "trivial". Second please be more careful about labelling material violations of WP:BLP when that material was contributed prior to the existence of a WP:BLP. Similarly the standards for referencing were much looser in 2005. The ((cite)) templates and <ref>, </ref>, <reference/> tags hadn't been written yet. WRT "poorly referenced" I spent a couple of hours looking for references to the Alina Balaican case. I found dozens. I could have added some of those references to the article -- bringing the references up to our current standards. But, like the rest of us, I have an obligation to act in the best interests of the project. In my opinion what would best serve the project would not be an article on Alina Balaican, but an article on the long, controversial and convoluted history of Canada giving temporary visas to Romanian women to work in the sex trade. That was my good faith suggestion, immediately above this opinion. It is a suggestion for which I think provided meaningful explanation. And I am disappointed to find it is a suggestion the respondent above has simply not addressed -- almost as if they didn't bother reading the opinions of other respondents here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right that there might well be a valid article to be had on the larger phenomenon. But this AFD isn't about that; it's about whether we need an unsourced biography of Alina Balaican herself. Nobody in this discussion has said that the issue was trivial — but the names and biographies of individual women involved in it certainly are. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. As the article explains, her name is only of interest because it was picked up by the press among many hundreds of other dancers in a similar situation. Pcap ping 16:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pcap, THF. Possibly redirect afterwords. Ray^Talk 19:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BLP1E applies. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 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. JForget 02:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Edlington Attempted Murders[edit]

The Edlington Attempted Murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Procedural nomination after the proposed deletion was contested at requests for undeletion. The topic seems to be a non-notable news event. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This stub doesn't give a good picture of the crime or its impact. Two brothers of 10 & 11 lured two boys to woods then beat, tortured and humiliated them over a prolonged period, filming it on their mobile phones.[15] Crime of this nature by children of this age is not run-of-the-mill, which is why this case has received intense and extensive coverage in the UK since first reported in April 2009.[16] The Attorney General personally looked at the case to assess whether the sentences were too lenient,[17] and the sentencing has been covered in comment columns, not just news reports.[18] The case has been highlighted as a failure of child protection services,[19] and of Doncaster Council.[20] David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, has used the case politically as an example of what he calls "Labour's moral failure" and "broken Britain",[21] and has called for the full publication of the report into the case.[22] The case has been compared to the murder of James Bulger,[23] and the case of Mary Bell.[24] I'll work on the article shortly. Fences&Windows 18:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  p.s. The prod nominator and article nominator are both in the US: this may be a case of neither having heard of it (due to a lack of US coverage), but not checking the coverage before nominating. Fences&Windows 18:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Fences and windows. Edward321 (talk) 06:21, 2 March 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. My main concern here is that the article seems impossible to write without sounding promotional. However, my concerns were mostly assuaged by Pietri's arguments. I hope to see that happen. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Startup[edit]

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

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

Contested prod. Rationale was: Neologisms are not part of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify reasons why you consider 'Lean Startup' a Neologism ?. Leanguy (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NEO: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." I don't feel that this term has enough coverage in reliable sources to be covered by Wikipedia. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neologism, possibly copyright infringement. Every reference I can find on the web comes back to this one guy, Eric Ries, who coined the term. In fact I found this: "The Lean Startup is a trademark and service mark owned by Eric Ries."[25] This Wikipedia article doesn't mention that it is a trademarked phrase but makes it sound like a term of general use. I think that's a rather shaky situation from Wikipedia's point of view. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)M Keep I yield to William Pietri's expertise and sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware of trademark, Lean Startup is sure a big movement with meetup groups around the world formed to discuss lean startup methods. I wonder if this article here is shaky from Wikipedia's point of view. Cocacola Leanguy (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it points out the trademark. Check it out: the Wikipedia article on Coca-Cola says "Coke (a registered trademark of The Coca-Cola Company in the United States since March 27, 1944)." --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trademark isn't an issue. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, copyright infringement is a serious accusation. I tried searching on some of the text in the article, but couldn't find other copies of it. Do you have some evidence that this text has been taken from elsewhere? Like Leanguy and Jujutacular, I think there's no problem with us covering trademarked terms, so if you have reason to think otherwise, please let us know. William Pietri (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't saying that the text was taken from somewhere else. I was saying that the trademarked term isn't identified as a trademarked term in the article. If Wikipedia is OK with that, fine. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fine fact to mention in the article, but the absence of some relevant fact in an article isn't a reason to delete; it's a reason to edit. William Pietri (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "shaky situation" Melanie refers to is the fact that the article makes it sound like a common industry-wide term, whereas the sources show it always associated with a single person. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For somebody unfamiliar with the field, that's a reasonable concern after a first glance at Google, but I think I've addressed that sufficiently below. If you still think otherwise, let me know what remaining concerns you have. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This isn't a neologism; it's just the name of something relatively new, which is different; the no neologisms rule isn't a rule against all things novel. Having recently submitted a conference proposal on this very topic, I believe it to be a real thing, a notable thing, and one clear enough to be documented. As evidence of that, consider that O'Reilly, the most prominent tech publisher, is offering a class on it. There are also articles in important industry-specific sources ReadWriteWeb and GigaOm, with a mention in TechCrunch. I also note at least 20 different Lean Startup meetups around the world. As to the question of trademarks, trademarking the name of a software process or a practice is not uncommon; e.g., Planning poker or Rational Unified Process, both registered trademarks. William Pietri (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, O'Reilly is offering a webcast on this topic - led by Eric Ries![26] Like I said, every reference I found on the web comes back to this one guy. To me that means it is not yet a generally used or accepted term. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did create the process and name it, so a lot of it will come back to him. But if you dig deeper, you'll see that plenty of other people are writing and talking about it, including Steve Blank, Dave McClure, Ash Maurya, Rich Collins, and Chris Cameron. I also note that Stanford thought the topic important enough to invite Eric Ries to talk about it, and Ries and Blank are currently teach a class at Berkeley's Haas School of Business on the topic. The term may not be generally used in the sense that people in Dubuque are talking about it on the street, but I don't think that's true for a lot of good articles. If the two top schools for high-tech entrepreneurship are teaching it to their students, it seems weird that it's not important enough for Wikipedia to cover it. William Pietri (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ries was not the first person to coin this term, but he is the "evangelist" for it. It was used long before in the boostrapped startup circles. For example, I own a domain name LeanStartups.com and wrote a blog about lean startups since November 18, 2008. Lean startups is also closely related to Lean services and Lean software development --Apsinkus (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not persuaded by the argument that if a term is "always" associated with a person it is unacceptable. For instance, the Black-Scholes [27] model is "always" associated with Fischer Black/Myron Scholes, yet that term is clearly acceptable. If the concern that it is a term only associated with one person, then please refer to the Lean Startup Circle [28] which has more than 2500 members that subscribe to the model and hold meetings across the globe. This group was neither founded nor maintained by Ries (although he is a periodic contributor.) Therefore, the question becomes: is 2500 active, verifiable practitioners sufficient? If not, what number is sufficient? Dbinetti (talk) 05:28, 28 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. JForget 02:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outloud[edit]

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

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

Delete, seems to be a circle jerk over a band with no notability. I see no sources that back up that this band meets inclusion guidelines, Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who added the article, first of all outloud is a band who is just starting but already gotten a lot of attention for a band who has just released a debut album, and second i've seen smaller bands that havnt been deleted. How can i back up the article more. --Firewindwik (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no notability per WP:BAND. Possible WP:COI. (GregJackP (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

i've looked at WP:BAND and it says "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable" and they have been in multiple rock/metal magazines including Rock Hand and Metal Hammer and they are on a major lable. --Firewindwik (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails the specific criteria of WP:BAND for having a single album only and being on a non-major label (Frontier does not appear to be major). Fails the general notability guidelines for the absence of coverage presented in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:23, 28 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) 11:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Towning[edit]

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

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

Towning is an antiques dealer who is one of several dealers on ITV's "Meet the Dealer" Don't know that there are enough secondary sources to base an article on although a redirect to Meet the Dealer might be appropriate. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:ENT. THF (talk) 01:41, 28 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 'keep' !vote does not provide enough evidence to counter the delete !votes, so the consensus is to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Key[edit]

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

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

Non-notable, unverifiable, seems to be a case of WP:NFT. The Hacker Key website apparently no longer exists. Why did you do it (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable trivia. The article doesn't really even explain what this actually is, but it looks like something from a (possibly no-longer-existant) web forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It does explain what it is, namely an extension of the Geek code. The Interwebs allows you to find more information there. I'd keep this article; it might be useful for somebody in the future. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point to any reliable sources? Why did you do it (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There are a couple of references on it in Google Books, such as Encoding: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases by Inc Icon Group International or Traits: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases by the same Inc Icon Group International, but the mentions are short, an in general it seems pretty much outdated, almost unused (I've spotted quite a few specimens in the wild life, but it borders on nothing). I tend to think it was not ever somehow popular itself, behind being "yet another Geek code derivative". Honeyman (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - apparently non-notable concept, lacks coverage in reliable sources. Could potentially be merged into Geek code, but it's not directly relevant to that article. Robofish (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is clearly to delete (and salvageable material has been added elsewhere as per Fences&Windows's comment). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tangerinegate[edit]

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

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

WP:NOT#NEWS anyone? The fact that a pair of noted papers temporarily and briefly took note of this hoax doesn't make it important. Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The event fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT for having no historical significance whatsoever. The article's title is a neologism: [29]. — Rankiri (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is exactly the kind of thing WP:NOTNEWS is for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tangerinegate is a small controversy but it is an example of the media getting things wrong. Should it be merged into another article? Should there be a new article on the Brown bullying allegations? Spidergareth (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Or just merge with the Robert Popper page MagicBez (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Any particular reason to keep? Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be kept in the Popper article since it is a notable aspect of Poppers career. It is also important because a major news organization was hoaxed. It should be included in another article, Poppers is probably the place for it. Spidergareth (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this can be safely deleted per WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTTWITTER. Or perhaps WP:NOTNEWS. A very brief comment about this could be added to Robert Popper, as he did successfully hoax The Telegraph, but the title is not a likely search term and the material isn't usable. Fences&Windows 02:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed. I will add it into Robert Popper. Spidergareth (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin, please note that material from this article was selectively merged into Robert Popper by Spidergareth without attribution. I have made a note at Talk:Robert Popper on the history of the article, which satisfies the Wikipedia license, so this article may be deleted (if there is consensus to do so). Fences&Windows 17:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: it's certainly WP:NOTNEWS. --Duncan (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete now article has been merged. Spidergareth (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: Never happened, no story to tell. --h-stt !? 11:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but merge + redirect to Robert Popper --Chuunen Baka (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the story gets bigger and wider. I note that some of the story has been merged into Robert Popper, I see no reason not the merge the rest, too. 81.102.127.62 (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a newsrag. Woogee (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, ::The importance is that two separate major UK news organisations were duped into printing fiction as fact. The hoax fits completely in with the current image of Gordon Brown being a bully, with new revelations and denials coming out frequently in the UK presently. Kev (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it needs expanding as an example of cognitive illusion?
• Keep why is Tangerinegate disallowed when Thatchergate is permitted?
• Delete. It's sad that this is even being defended as encyclopedic. WP:NOTNEWSNiteshift36 (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS Not a likely search term, so a redirect is counter-indicated. --Bejnar (talk) 18:45, 6 March 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. JForget 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Volny[edit]

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

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

Gay porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Awards section now added, he passes PORNBIO. There is an overwhelming bias on Wikipedia for gay pornography actors to allow American actors but not European actors as the US porn-related awards are well documented but there are few such notable awards in common use across Europe. Consequently PORNBIO itself tends to encourage rapid deletion of such BLPs, a somewhat less hard-line approach may be appropriate for non-US BLPs with plenty of grace time considered for promoting improvement of these articles before taking to deletion. In this particular case a search for Volny on AVN.com immediately shows his award wins, so not enough effort to follow the guidance of WP:BEFORE was applied by the nominator before raising this AfD. Ash (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Seems to me that the rational behind this nomination is summed up in first three words. I'm requesting that Epbr123 nominators be required to put more effort into their nominations and not just saying "fails gng, fails pornbio" as I've seen dozens of times in the past. I would like to see an argument as to how BIO is either met or failed by a neutral party before I vote on this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, ok. Epbr123 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ash's first sentence. Epbr123 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm curious about assumption of the European Gay Porn Awards as a notable award. The article itself was created very recently and offers little detail. They appear to have been short-lived and as this source notes the sponsorship is unclear. I'm sure there are many such awards that we would not consider notable - why this one? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The awards do have some coverage, eg. [30], [31], [32]. Epbr123 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Indeed, the European Gay Porn Awards is just as notable in Europe as the AVN_Awards are in America- then they should be respected as a reliable source...especially given the difficulty in finding unbiased sources for Porn Bios' inclusion in Wikipedia. But I'm getting ahead of myself...This is a firm "keep" if only because this performer has won multiple awards, has more than a dozen reliable citations which are NOT under question, and is most unquestionably notable. The article passes WP:PORNBIO. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 00:17, 28 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. JForget 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Ellison[edit]

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

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

Has no first class, list-A or Twenty20 experiences, CricInfo lists one FC match however CA (the more reliable of the two) records it not as a FC match. According to WP:CRIN, U-19 matches alone don't indicate notability, nor do Otago 'A' matches. Freelance writers for CricInfo also don't suggest notability. Author declined a PROD under WP:GNG however after discussion at WT:CRIC I've decided to bring to AfD for consensus. SGGH ^ping! 12:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{Notified User:XLerate as he removed the PROD. SGGH ^ping! 12:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

• Cricinfo doesn't list any First-class matches for him, maybe you are getting confused with Basanta Regmi? Harrias (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right. Juggling two Afds at once. SGGH ^ping! 12:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agree with SGGH reasoning above, fails WP:CRIN, and I don't believe that his U19, Otago 'A' matches, or writing on Cricinfo confers him with enough notability. Harrias (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. By our current WP:CRIN notability guidelines, this one falls short of the requirements.—MDCollins (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Johnlp (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 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. JForget 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Atzeni[edit]

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

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

May not be encyclopedic, But am not sure of that MaenK.A._Talk 11:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, played in Serie A according to source. Geschichte (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (can I vote even if I am the author of the article?),beacuse he played matches both in Italian first and second division. For English footballers it's enough,so it must be the same for footballers from other nations.--Der Schalk (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If he's played the sport at the highest level, then he meets the guidelines for notability in athletes. Edward321 (talk) 15:37, 2 March 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. JForget 02:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geek Code[edit]

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

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

Potentially amusing, but doesn't make any real claim to notability. The only references are to blogs and personal web pages and the only implementations are personal projects. Why did you do it (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep If you don't see the formal notability references in the article - please bother to find and add them, before putting anything you don't understand for the deletion. Funny that I spotted this AfD request not by looking over some afd logs, but because I needed the information on the geek code myself, and the first place I decided to consult was Wikipedia. Honeyman (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, to the point: the most prominent reference is the own article in the Jargon File, currently maintained by somebody called Eric S. Raymond (his personal homepage may give you some more clues on it). Btw, Jargon File is 26 years older than Wikipedia. Also, a quick lookup on Google hints us about 69 books whose authors are aware about Geek Code and want either to tell about it a word or two, or at least mention their own geek codes in the book. This includes the books from marginal and sociological ones as The New Hacker's Dictionary by the aforementioned Eric Raymond (and in fact being the print version of the Jargon File) or Communities in Cyberspace by Peter Kollock, or Ethnologies by the Folklore Studies Association of Canada (where the Geek Code named "one of the more fascinating folkloric creations to come out of the internet"); but also the books purely technical like The SAGE handbook of online research methods‎, or ENTERPRISE 2.0 IMPLEMENTATION. Honeyman (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh yes, and the latter book tells us that the geek code is a part of FOAF ontology standard. That should close any other questions. Honeyman (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are only passing references, not substantial coverage. The Jargon File does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable secondary sources as it is a personal project of Eric Raymond and not subject to formal editorial control. And inclusion in FOAF is similarly unconvincing: as a minor, little known feature of the standard, it too is no more than a passing reference. Why did you do it (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Jargon File ... is a personal project of Eric Raymond and not subject to formal editorial control. - please reconsider the Eric S. Raymond and Jargon File articles; the Jargon File first appeared in 1975 while Eric Raymond claims that "his involvement with hacker culture began in 1976". The Jargon File is a manuscript of geekdom knowledge that changed several authors and editors (most important one, besides Eric Raymond, is probably Guy Steele), and passed several published editions (note Guy L. Steele, Eric S. Raymond, eds. (1996). The New Hacker's Dictionary (3rd ed.). MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-68092-0.). I doubt it could ever be considered "not a subject to formal editorial control" with such a long history. As for the FOAF, the [FOAF vocabulary specification] clearly shows that it is not "a minor, little known feature" but just the usual vocabulary term like "age", "publications", or "weblog". Honeyman (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I've understood the reliable sources rules correctly, the kind of editorial control that Wikipedia looks for is specifically a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, such as you get from peer reviewed scientific journals, and to a lesser extent, news sources, especially from the high end of the market. Even if you accept that the Jargon File meets those criteria (which is debatable), it is still a dictionary and a collection of trivia. We don't have articles for everything in the Jargon File (banana problem? bit paired keyboard?) and nor should we. As far as FOAF is concerned, it gives the Geek Code a status of "archaic" (which judging by [33] seems to indicate that it's not actively being used) whereas the important bits all have a status of "stable," and even describes it as "somewhat frivolous and willfully obscure". I stand by what I said that this counts as no more than a passing mention. Why did you do it (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • In general, I agree with your addition. But there is one thing that differs Banana problem and Bit-paired keyboard (which are not included in Wiki) from Geek code, Befunge, Bells and whistles, and the Cargo cult programming. To date (and IMO, at least for three of the above, unfortunately), the latter ones are known and used. And this is where (contrary to the notability proof), the Google Search numbers (78100 for the "BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK" query) act as a perfect endorsement. Yes, it is incredibly outdated; but the people use it nevertheless. 119 on Wikipedia; 312 on LiveJournal; 87 on Facebook; 5540 on MySpace; hell, do all of them indeed know what VMS or Kibo is? Honeyman (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:GHITS and WP:BIG. Why did you do it (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • ... which both claim that the Google numbers cannot be used for notability confirmation (what I don't), though sometimes thay may be used as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet to disprove the notability (what they fail); and they don't restrict to use Google numbers to prove the fact of "still in use and known" (what I do). Honeyman (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • And once again, besides the Jargon file, the dictionaries and the FOAF standard, there are multiple sociological works which describe the Geek Code, its relation to the geeks and the community, some of them name the Geek Code the early criteria for being the geek, some of them tell about it as a witty manifestation of the computer-specific culture, but none of them somehow mentioning its "insignificance" or "negligibility". They are apparently peer-reviewed or cited, and independently published. Honeyman (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I only see one (The Cultures of Computing) which gives it more than one or two sentences, and even then, most of its coverage is quoting the Geek Code verbatim. Why did you do it (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, I cannot agree with your "archaic" argument for FOAF standard. Neither it goes well with the "notability is not temporary" Wikipedia concept, nor in fact it indeed means "outdated" in the FOAF scope; it is used in the scope of Vocabulary Status Vocabulary, which tells that "archaic... This term is marked as old-fashioned; although used, it is not considered typical of current best practice and alternative expressions may be preferable"; and the FOAF Vocabulary tells us that "The definitions of 'stable', 'unstable', 'archaic' and 'testing' cannot be defined as global absolutes, but only in relationship to the practices, expectations and social structures around some vocabulary"; in other words, I'd consider the "stable" term is the standard one which is used for very long, and without any spec changes, which the opposite, "archaic", is still the standard one, which though is being used rarely, with decreasing popularity; while both stay the same supported and standard ones, unless mentioned otherwise. And for the "otherwise", I mean the numerous marks like This property is a candidate for deprecation..., This property is considered archaic usage, and is not currently recommended for usage, which are not present in the term_geekcode definition. That is, if I decide to implement a blog service that provides the FOAF profiles which contain the term_geekcode, it's not the standard who could define my service as "incompatible" - it's my service and its positive experience of term_geekcode implementation that may redefine the term_geekcode status from "archaic" to "unstable" or "testing". Honeyman (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • That still does not convince me that it's non-trivial. For comparison, the Colemak keyboard layout is included with Ubuntu Linux and even appears prominently on the installation screens. Yet this was considered insufficient at AfD a couple of years ago -- a point that, regrettably, I have had to concede. Why did you do it (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, to stop this nonsense, let's pedantically apply the WP:N to this topic, and review the references in-depth.
        • Significant coverage - 65 books in Google Book Search, and also 37 mentions in Google Scholar. more than a trivial mention - a couple of paragraphs in "The new hacker's dictionary", including a brief historical overview and its influence ("... there is now even a Saturn Geek Code for owners of the Saturn car"). About a full page in "Communities in Cyberspace", with even more details, including basic decyphering rules. A couple of paragraphs in "The telecommunications illustrated dictionary", just between the GDI and the Geissler tube (and likely about the same in Data & telecommunications dictionary, unavailable for review), and the geek code generator mentioned in the Linux Journal article (and I bet the Linux Journal magazine definitely has enough editorial oversight) - not that much a coverage, but a broad interest. The amount of coverage in "Ethnologies, vol 21" is unknown, but it seems sufficient enough to explain how to decypher the Star Trek addiction from the code. "The cultures of computing" by The Editorial Board of the Sociological Review, edited by the Associate Professor in the University of Illinois - just the whole Geek Code spec is cited on a dozen of pages, and the geeks concept is defined through it; and its authorship/editorship makes me think it's not just yet another book by a hacker about the hackers' inner jokes. In "Two bits: the cultural significance of free software" by Christopher M. Kelty, the Geek Code is used to distinguish between the early geekdom characterization (called in the book "the Hayden-style geeks") and the subsequent geekdom after the explosive growth of the Internet. A pity but the contents of "The Incredible Internet Guide to Star Wars: The Complete Guide to Everything" by Peter J. Weber is not available due to the copyright issues; but it is interesting to know that the Geek Code might be known to the usual Star Wars fans rather than just to the hackers community; similarly, it worths mention its mention in "Role-playing games (RPGs)" by Sean Winslow.
        • Reliable - among the books above, there are books that passed several editions, and there are multiple sociological works.
        • Secondary sources - even the dubious Jargon File is the secondary source for Robert Hayden's Geek Code, not to mention everything else. Neither of the books in the Google Book Search output lists Robert Hayden as the author.
        • Independent of the subject - see above.
        • the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan" - well, we here in 2010 are discussing the topic of 1993. Apparently it was not.
        • Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity - unlikely with the RPG or Star Wars books not to mention the other ones.
        • a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage. - well, it definitely had the coverage by the end of 20-th century. And the "ENTERPRISE 2.0 IMPLEMENTATION‎" which mentions its FOAF inclusion is written in 2008.
      • And for the assistance, let's also consult the WP:NSOFT:
        • Reviews must be significant, from an reliable source, and/or assert notability. - oh yes. "...a classic mock self-diagnostic called the Geek Code" from here, and "one of the more fascinating folkloric creations to come out of the internet" from here should be enough.
        • The history of computing and of personal computers. Software from the era of 8-bit personal computers may be notable even if it was distributed or documented under pseudonyms - well, the Geek Code is from the times of Ultrix, SCO Unix, NeXT and VMS.
        • It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown. - I don't recall any commercial or closed-source versions of Geek Code.
        • Notability of one package does not automatically mean that each of its competitors are notable as well - I won't say a word if every article else from Category:Internet self-classification codes is deleted (though I might reconsider the Hacker Key, as it was covered by some of the same sources as Geek Code), cause all of them are no more than the less known neighbours of the Geek Code.
        • On the other hand, software of significant historical or technical importance is notable even if it is no longer in widespread use or distribution. - precisely. Though the people still include the Geek Code in their profiles and signatures to date.
        • Editors should evaluate various aspects of the coverage: the depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage. - well, it is covered in the books from a couple of overview/historical paragraphs to the full spec, from 1993 to 2008, from published hacker bulletins through RPG/StarWars books to the sociological analysis... and regarding the geography, Robert Hayden is assumed to be from US or UK, while I am from Russia. Honeyman (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm still not convinced. The above are all a couple of paragraphs at most. I do not consider a couple of paragraphs or a dictionary definition to be more than just a trivial mention. If you can give me, for instance, three substantial and independent newspaper articles for which it is the main subject, I will withdraw the nomination. Why did you do it (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unfortunately, neither you cannot do this IIRC (as long as least there is a single Delete vote besides yours); nor we ever need the three substantial and independent newspaper articles to prove the notability, quote WP:N: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material; going in details in about every book reference (Geek code is created by bla-bla, used for bla-bla, influenced bla-bla, you can encode the fact you can distinguish Mr. Spock from Picard using bla-bla) is definitely far from a trivial mention (... and examples of such obscure self-representation methods are Geek Code, Furry Code, Bear Code, Nerd Code, Dork Code, and several thousand more ones; now let's go to the next chapter.) Honeyman (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, and by the way, WP:NSOFT has a warning in big bold letters at the top of it saying "This is not a wikipedia policy and should not be used as a basis for article inclusion." Why did you do it (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • And precisely this big bold warning contains the words though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion; what matches my usage of it: And for the assistance, let's also consult the WP:NSOFT. Honeyman (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can come up with substantial coverage in reliable sources. I'm utterly unconvinced by the above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for importunity, but I need to stress again that the geek code is a part of standard in the FOAF Vocabulary Specification, together with such fields as Myers-Briggs classification or the list of other people the person being covered by FOAF data personally knows. Honeyman (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I noted above, that does not qualify as substantial coverage in a reliable secondary source. Why did you do it (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After looking over the evidence presented there seems to be sources for this. "Communities in Cyberspace" looks like a reliable source. It has a real publisher and editor. It devotes a fair amount of space to the geek code. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Evidently notable. I have cited one of the numerous books which cover the topic in detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the colonel, the first one to contribute here who actually believes articles can & should be sourced. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think notability has been satisfactorily established here. Robofish (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough sources to establish notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it’s evidently assigned. --Frakturfreund (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think notability has been established here. Agharo (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sourced and notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Essential piece of Internet culture. Sources that establish notablity have been presented above. --Cyclopia^talk 18:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Tikiwont (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collin Otis[edit]

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

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

I don't think he's even a professor. WP:Academic CynofGavuf 09:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Being a graduate student and getting a scholarship are not any sort of claim of significance. Tagged for A7 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 1 March 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. JForget 02:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Skeleton[edit]

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

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

I found the creator of this article adding a link to this at List of conspiracy theories‎ - " another theory claims that this story is just part of a disinformation campaign to prevent or delay the disclosure of an extraterrestrial skeleton." Even the article has no reliable sources calling it a skeleton, and the lead says it is 'the unofficial name'. I have done a search and find no evidence that it meets WP:Notability. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No other sources have been found, so it does not meet notability criteria for its own article. However, it might merit mention under another related Moon article. I recommend merging with South_Pole-Aitken_basin article or De_Gerlache_(crater) article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka2uya2ep (talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge about one line's worth to Topography of the Moon. LadyofShalott 16:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I couldn't find a source for this name; it seems like OR. Hence I'm not sure a merge would be a good idea.—RJH (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Unable to support a keep or merge at this point.—RJH (talk)
• Comment Without a reliable source the article might as well claim the moon is made of cheese. -- Kheider (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research, unsourced, possibly even bordering on a hoax. The feature in question doesn't even look like a skeleton. Why did you do it (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The content of the article and the content of the cited references fail to distinguish this from something some kid just made up. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - apparently original research/made up, lacking any third-party references. Robofish (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Looks like OR to me. Airplaneman ^talk 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator.Edward321 (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ^^^ JBsupreme (talk) 09:48, 4 March 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.